Question: Needing a new supply of basketballs for the upcoming season, a basketball coach placed an order with a sporting goods store to purchase 25 regulation basketballs. Since the season was scheduled to begin on November 1, the coach stated that he needed the basketballs delivered no later than October 15. The sporting goods store said it would deliver the basketballs by that date. On October 10, one of the sporting goods store's employees was moving items in the warehouse and accidentally destroyed a container of basketballs. As a result, the owner of the sporting goods store telephoned the coach on October 11 and said, "We had an accident in our warehouse yesterday, and as a result we do not have enough basketballs to fill all of our orders. Therefore, I won't be able to deliver your basketballs on October 15. However, I have contacted our supplier to see if they can rush a delivery of basketballs to us. Although I can't promise it, I should be able to deliver the basketballs you ordered by October 20. " The coach replied, "No problem. I think I'll be able to get by until then. " When the coach failed to receive the basketballs on October 20, he sent the following e-mail to the sporting goods store:"I must have the basketballs no later than October 23. " The e-mail was received and read the same day by the owner of the sporting goods store. If the sporting goods store fails to deliver the basketballs to the coach on October 23, will the coach be entitled to cancel the contract?

Choices:
- Yes, provided both parties are viewed as being merchants.
- Yes, provided that the three-day notice afforded the sporting goods store a reasonable time in which to perform.
- No, because the coach's October 11 statement effectuated a waiver of any condition of timely delivery.
- No, because the sporting goods store, by its October 11 statement, did not promise to deliver the basketballs by October 20.


Question: A college student and a man got into a fight at a bar while playing pooi. The college student allegedly started the fight when he struck the man in the head with a pool cue after the man sank a game-winning shot. At the college student's trial for assault, the prosecution called one of the college student's classmates to testify. The classmate was not at the bar during the fight. The classmate offered to testify that the next day at class, he approached the college student and said, "It was wrong of you to start a fight with the man over a game of pool," at which point, the college student bowed his head and walked away. The classmate's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible as part of the res gestae.
- admissible as an admission.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible as self-serving.


Question: A company created a drug to lower high blood pressure. The President issues an executive order prohibiting the shipment and sale of the drug within the United States. Under this executive order, federal agents are empowered to prosecute all interstate shippers and sellers of the drug. The President claims that he is acting upon conclusive evidence that the drug causes cervical cancer in laboratory monkeys. This executive order is

Choices:
- valid, because the President has the authority to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
- valid, because the President has the authority to impose economic regulations unless overruled by Congress.
- invalid, because it is an unauthorized extension of executive power.
- invalid, because the President does not have the power to regulate interstate commerce.


Question: A construction worker was working at the construction site of a new building. An open elevator, which had been installed in the building by the elevator manufacturer, was used to haul workers and building materials between floors. While the worker was riding the elevator, it stalled between floors due to a manufacturing defect in the elevator. The worker called for assistance and was in no danger, but after waiting 15 minutes for help, he became anxious and jumped 12 feet to get out. He severely injured his back when he landed. In an action by the worker against the elevator manufacturer to recover for his back injury, is the worker likely to obtain a judgment for 100% of his damages?

Choices:
- No, because such risks are inherent in construction work.
- No, because the worker was not in danger while on the stalled elevator. while on the stalled elevator.
- Yes, because the elevator stalled due to a manufacturing defect.
- Yes, because the worker was falsely imprisoned in the stalled elevator.


Question: Four people own a property, and they agree to convey to an adult child of one of them. There is a purchasemoney mortgage on the property for which the four signed a promissory note as security. The loan was not satisfied at the time of the conveyance. The conveyance is a deed in fee simple to the adult child. The adult child then takes over the mortgage payments. The adult child stops making the payments and conveys the property to a bona fide purchaser who does not do a title search. The purchaser sues his grantor to get an order compelling him to pay the mortgage and remove the lien from his property. Will the court more than likely grant the motion to dismiss made by the defendants?

Choices:
- Yes, that is the risk the purchaser took; he cannot go to closing without a title search and a title company making arrangements for payment of the outstanding mortgage by the seller at closing.
- Yes, because the court can only force the original four owners to clear the mortgage by paying it in full.
- No, the court will order the original four owners to come into court and defend on behalf of the adult child, who has no legal responsibility for the mortgage.
- No, the court will order the adult child to resume paying on the mortgage and to obtain a loan to pay it off within a reasonable time.


Question: A boat owner was sailing his boat at sea when a storm advisory was suddenly issued. The boat owner was navigating his craft toward shore when heavy rain and wind gusts began to rock the boat. Unable to reach his own slip, the boat owner docked his boat on a pier owned by a resident who lived in a nearby house. The resident objected to the boat owner's entry onto his private property. The boat owner explained that due to the storm it would be highly dangerous to be at sea. He requested permission to temporarily dock his boat until the storm subsided. The resident refused and cut the rope tying the boat to the dock. As a result, the boat drifted out to sea. The boat was battered by the rocky waves and high winds. Trying to prevent the boat from capsizing, the boat owner fell and broke his leg. The boat was extensively damaged in the storm, as well. The boat owner has sued the resident, seeking to recover damages for his personal injury, as well as damage to the boat. The boat owner should

Choices:
- recover for the damage to the boat, but not recover for his personal injury.
- recover for his personal injury, but not recover for the damage to the boat.
- recover both for damage to the boat and for his personal injury.
- not recover for either damage to the boat or his personal injury.


Question: On February 1, an owner of six vacation cottages in a resort area hired a painter to paint all six cottages for $50,000. The contract stipulated that no money would be due until the owner's caretaker approved the work done by the painter. The painter completed the painting of all six cottages. Two days after the painter had finished the painting, a wildfire destroyed the six cottages. Although the caretaker had inspected four of the cottages to his approval, he had not inspected the other two cottages prior to their destruction. Which of the following is the LEAST accurate statement with respect to the caretaker's approval of the painting of the cottages?

Choices:
- The owner would only be obligated to pay for the painting of the four cottages that the caretaker approved.
- The caretaker's approval of the painting of the two cottages destroyed by the wild fire would be excused.
- The owner would be obligated to pay for the painting of all of the cottages.
- The impossibility of securing the caretaker's approval would render the owner absolutely liable for all of the painting.


Question: A female patient at a federal hospital reported that a male nurse sexually assaulted her. The man was arrested. At trial the prosecution offered evidence that the man was convicted of two prior sexual assault charges against two other women, both occurring about two years earlier. The allegations and the man's modus operandi in those convictions were almost identical to the instant case. Defense counsel objected to the evidence on the basis that its highly prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, what will the court most likely rule regarding this issue?

Choices:
- The evidence is too prejudicial and must be excluded.
- The evidence is inadmissible because it is not relevant to the present charges and has a low probative value.
- The evidence is admissible because present public policy strongly favors the apprehension and prosecution of sexual predators.
- The evidence is admissible due to the factual similarity with the present charge, which gives the evidence strong probative value.


Question: A bicycle company manufactured a bicycle that it sold to a retail bicycle dealer, which in turn sold it to a purchaser. Shortly thereafter, while the purchaser was riding the bicycle along a city street, he saw a traffic light facing him turn from green to amber. He sped up, hoping to cross the intersection before the light turned red. However, the purchaser quickly realized that he could not do so and applied the brakes, which failed. To avoid the traffic that was then crossing in front of him, the purchaser turned sharply to his right and onto the sidewalk, where he struck a pedestrian. Both the pedestrian and the purchaser suffered injuries. The pedestrian asserted a claim based on negligence against the bicycle company. At trial, it was found that the brake failure resulted from a manufacturing defect in the bicycle, and that the bicycle company failed to conduct a reasonable inspection that would have led to the discovery of the existence of the defect. Will the pedestrian prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the bicycle company placed a defective bicycle into the stream of commerce.
- Yes, because the defect could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by the bicycle company.
- No, because the pedestrian was not a purchaser of the bicycle.
- No, because the purchaser was negligent in turning onto the sidewalk.


Question: A man and a woman were arrested and charged with bank robbery. After receiving Miranda warnings, both requested an attorney. Following their arrests, the man and the woman were placed in separate jail cells. The next day before arraignment, the man asked a police officer if he could see his friend, the woman. The man was taken to the woman's jail cell and allowed to talk to her. Neither defendant knew that the police had placed a listening device in the woman's jail cell. As a result, their conversation was being overheard and recorded by the police. The police planted the listening device without first securing a warrant. While they were together, the man told the woman not to admit to anything because they could beat the charges with the help of a good lawyer. At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce the man's incriminating statement into evidence. The man's attorney has filed a motion to exclude. The motion should be

Choices:
- denied, because the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- denied, because the statement did not violate the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- granted, because both defendants requested an attorney before engaging in their conversation.
- granted, because the police did not secure a warrant before installing the listening device.


Question: A writer sent a four-page synopsis of an idea for a new television series to a Hollywood producer. He sent it in response to an ad for new ideas in an industry publication. He discussed it with the producer's assistant in a phone call, and mentioned his expectation of compensation. She said, "Well, of course, we always pay for a writer's work." She said she would go over it with her boss to see if he liked it. Several months later, the writer saw a casting call for a new series. The plot and characters were nearly identical to those described in his synopsis. He sued the producer for breach of contract. The producer defended by arguing that there was no contract. What is the likely ruling of the court?

Choices:
- The court will rule that there is an express contract because there was a meeting of the mind and mutual assent to the basic terms.
- The court will rule that there was an implied in fact contract between the parties based on the conduct that they manifested.
- The court will rule that there was no consideration specifically mentioned and under those circumstances, the law viewed the synopsis as a gift to the producer.
- There were too many terms left out for this to be a contract, and it was too indefinite for the court to imply what the terms might have been.


Question: A defendant was arrested and charged with forgery for unlawfully signing her ex-husband's signature on his pay check. Before trial, the defendant entered into plea bargain negotiations with the prosecution. During the course of these negotiations, the defendant sent a letter to the prosecuting attorney in which she stated: "I don't want to go to jail, so if you recommend a suspended sentence, I'll plead guilty and admit that I forged my ex-husband's signature on the check. " Subsequently, the plea bargain negotiations fell through. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was arrested and charged with forging her ex-husband's signature on his next pay check. She has denied culpability regarding the second forgery charge. At trial for the alleged second forgery, the prosecution seeks to introduce the letter the defendant sent to the prosecution during her earlier plea bargain negotiations. The defendant's attorney objects to the admissibility of the letter. The trial court judge should rule the letter is

Choices:
- admissible as evidence of the defendant's propensity for committing the crime.
- admissible as an admission.
- inadmissible, because it was written during the course of plea bargain negotiations.
- inadmissible, because specific instances of misconduct are not admissible in a criminal case.


Question: A landowner was the record title owner of a three- acre tract of land. In order to finance the purchase of the property in 2005, the landowner borrowed $100,000 from the bank, which secured the loan with a mortgage that amortized principal and interest payments over a 15-year period. The bank promptly recorded the mortgage. This jurisdiction has the following recording statute in effect:"Any unrecorded conveyance or mortgage is invalid as against a subsequent bonafide purchaser for value without notice who records first. "In 2006, the landowner subdivided the property into three one-acre lots. He sold lot ito his friend for $75,000. The following year, the landowner sold lot 2 to his brother for $60,000. The landowner continued to reside on lot 3. When the landowner sold lots 1 and 2 to the friend and the brother, the deeds did not make any reference to the original mortgage between the landowner and the bank. In 2009, the landowner was laid off from his job and went into default on his mortgage payments. The bank is now about to institute foreclosure proceedings. Which of the following most accurately states the rights and obligations of the parties?

Choices:
- The bank can foreclose only on lot 3 because ownership to that parcel is retained by the landowner, the original mortgagor.
- The bank has the option of foreclosing on parcels 1, 2, or 3 because the mortgage covered the entire three-acre tract.
- The bank must first foreclose on lot 3, and if the proceeds are insufficient, then the mortgagee may foreclose against lots 1 and 2 in the inverse order of their alienation.
- The bank can foreclose on lot 3, but not on lots I and 2 unless the friend and the brother assumed the mortgage when they purchased their land from the landowner.


Question: An engineer signed a two-year contract to serve as the chief safety engineer for a coal mine at a salary of $7,000 per month. The position required the engineer to work underground each workday. After one week on the job, the engineer became very ill. He requested testing of the mine air system, which revealed the presence of a chemical agent to which the engineer had a rare allergic reaction. The engineer promptly quit. The coal mine then hired a qualified replacement for the remainder of the engineer's contract at a salary of $7,500 per month. Assume that no statute or regulation applies. If the coal mine sues the engineer for breach of contract, is the coal mine likely to recover damages?

Choices:
- No, because an at-will employee has the right to terminate an employment contract.
- No, because the risk to the engineer's health excused his nonperformance of the contract.
- Yes, because the coal mine acted in good faith in mitigating the effect of the engineer's failure to finish the contract term.
- Yes, because the mine is reasonably safe for most people.


Question: A farmer purchased a new pickup truck from a local automobile dealership. A few weeks later, the farmer was using the truck to haul a load of supplies to his farm. As he drove down a small hill toward an intersection with a stop sign, he applied the brakes, but they failed to work, and the truck did not slow down. The farmer could not stop for the stop sign. He saw a pedestrian crossing the street at the intersection and tried to steer around him, but was unable to do so. The pickup truck struck the pedestrian and seriously injured him. If the injured pedestrian asserts a negligence claim against the auto dealership that sold the truck to the farmer, and if it is conclusively proven that the brake failure resulted from a manufacturing defect in the car, will the pedestrian prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the pedestrian was not a purchaser or user of the truck.
- No, if the farmer was negligent in being unable to steer around and avoid hitting the pedestrian.
- Yes, because the auto dealer placed a defective car into the stream of commerce.
- Yes, if the defect could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by the auto dealer.


Question: A plaintiff brought an action against a defendant for personal injuries resulting from a car accident in which the defendant's car, negligently driven by his cousin, struck the telephone booth in which the plaintiff was resting. Liability is based on a statute making owners of automobiles liable for the negligent actions of those driving with the consent of the owner of the vehicle. The plaintiff offered into evidence the testimony of his doctor that the plaintiff had said to the doctor, when consulting the doctor for treatment, that he felt pain in his back immediately after the accident, and that pain persisted. The trial court should rule this testimony

Choices:
- admissible as a spontaneous declaration.
- admissible under the hearsay exception of declaration of present bodily condition.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible as conclusions.


Question: A buyer contracted with a seller to purchase 10,000 bushels of soybeans at market price. The soybeans were to be delivered in 90 days. Two days after the soybean contract was made, the buyer and the seller entered into another contract under which the buyer agreed to purchase 10,000 bushels of wheat from the seller at market price. Before the time for delivery of the soybeans, the seller notified the buyer that it would not deliver the wheat because the seller's wheat supplier had refused to extend additional credit to the seller and therefore the seller had no wheat available for the buyer. Which of the following statements best describes the effect of the seller's repudiation of the wheat contract on the buyer's rights under the soybean contract?

Choices:
- It gives the buyer the right to demand assurances that the seller will perform the soybean contract.
- It gives the buyer the right to terminate the soybean contract, because of the doctrine of soybean contract, because of the doctrine of dependent covenants.
- It gives the buyer the right to terminate the soybean contract, because the buyer does not have to deal with a party that breaches a contract.
- It has no effect on the buyer's rights, because the two contracts are entirely separate.


Question: A purchaser filed a federal diversity action against a seller, alleging breach of contract. The seller answered the complaint and included as a separate defense an allegation that the purchaser had brought and lost a similar contract claim against a different seller three years earlier, and that this history represented a pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits. The purchaser believes that the earlier lawsuit was factually completely different from the current one and is therefore irrelevant. What is the purchaser's best response to the seller's answer?

Choices:
- File a reply that includes a denial of the separate defense.
- Move for sanctions against the seller for asserting a frivolous defense.
- Move to amend the complaint to add allegations about the differences between the lawsuits.
- Move to strike the separate defense as irrelevant.


Question: A heavyset man with long red hair robbed a liquor store. Thereafter, a man was arrested and charged with the armed robbery. At the man's trial, the owner of the liquor store was called to testify. He admitted that he was unable to identify the man, who now had a shaven head, as the robber. The prosecuting attorney then handed the owner six photographs. He proposed to testify, over defense objections, that he had previously told the prosecuting attorney that picture #4, admittedly a picture of the man before he shaved his head, was a picture of the person who robbed his store. The owner's proffered testimony should be adjudged

Choices:
- admissible as a prior identification by the witness.
- admissible as past recollection recorded.
- inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible, because it is a violation of the man's right of confrontation.


Question: The President and sole stockholder of a small business negotiated to sell the business to an individual investor. The parties met and signed a "Letter Agreement", which set forth the price, down payment amount, financing terms, the assets to be included, and a host of other pertinent details. The final closing date was not stated, but the purchasers left a down payment of $20,000 with the seller. The letter stated that the terms comprised their essential agreement, but that a formal document would be drafted by the parties' attorneys. Before that happened, the seller returned the check and refused to perform. The investor brought an equity action for specific performance to compel the sale. The equity court ruled that there was a complete and binding contract that must be specifically performed. Will the appellate court likely affirm the lower court's decision?

Choices:
- No, because closing date was left out and the attorneys were supposed to compose the final contract with all of the remaining details put in.
- No, because this type of letter is basically a "gentlemen's agreement" that is not intended to be legally binding.
- Yes, because a letter of intent is legally binding if it sets forth the price, describes the business and is signed by both parties.
- Yes, because where the letter contains all of the essential terms required for a contract, it will be enforced as a contract.


Question: A city sent a certified notice by U.S. mail to a homeowner telling the owner that the property was listed for a foreclosure sale for failure to pay real estate property taxes. The post office quickly returned the notice to the city as being "unclaimed." The city decided that the notice was sufficient, and sold the property. The owner had been out of the country and did not claim his certified mail. When he found out he sued the city on the basis that there was insufficient notice. Will the owner succeed in having the foreclosure declared void by the court?

Choices:
- No, because the sending of certified notice to the property's address was reasonably calculated to reach him, which satisfies due process concerns.
- No, because the owner knew that he wasn't paying his taxes and that constituted de facto notice that that his property was subject to governmental taking.
- Yes, because in most circumstances an "unclaimed" notification is insufficient to satisfy the demands of due process.
- No, because the city had a right to expect that an owner will leave his property in the hands of someone who will notify him if his interest is in jeopardy.


Question: The police suspected a woman of dealing in stolen credit cards. An undercover police officer knocked on the woman's door and told her that he was willing to pay for usable credit cards. When the woman asked if he was a police officer, the officer replied, "No," giving her a false name and saying, "You can call Harvey he'll vouch for me." The woman admitted him to her house. After she left the room to call Harvey, the officer lifted some papers off a desk and underneath discovered three credit cards bearing different names. He seized the cards, and when the woman returned, he arrested her. The woman has moved to suppress the evidence seized on the ground that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

Choices:
- No, because it was immediately apparent that the cards were stolen.
- No, because the woman assumed the risk that the officer would seize items in plain sight.
- Yes, because the woman's rights were violated when the officer lifted the papers.
- Yes, because the woman's rights were violated when the officer obtained entry by deceit.


Question: The state has the following statutes regarding liquor sales in effect:"Section 1212. Whoever sells intoxicating liquor to any person who is intoxicated or inebriated is guilty of a misdemeanor. This section shall not apply in the case of sales of intoxicating liquor by a hotel, motel, or inn to any person registered and resident as a guest in such hotel, motel, or inn for consumption upon the premises thereof. ""Section 1213. It shall be unlawful for any vendor with a valid state liquor license to sell intoxicating beverages on Sunday. Anyone in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not less than $100 or more than $1,000. "The state authorities have regularly enforced the aforementioned dram shop statute and "blue law" prohibiting Sunday liquor sales. At 12:30 a. m. on Sunday morning, a customer entered a liquor store and purchased a bottle of wine. The clerk who made the sale, thought the time was 11:30 p. m. Saturday night because that was the time shown on the store's wall clock. Unknown to the clerk, the clock was malfunctioning and was running an hour behind. Thus, the clock displayed the wrong time when the clerk sold the wine to the customer. When the clerk made the sale, the customer did not appear to be visibly inebriated. After making the purchase, the customer drank the entire bottle of wine. He then drove off in his car and struck a pedestrian, injuring him. At the time of the accident, the customer was intoxicated from drinking the wine. If the pedestrian asserts a claim against the liquor store, will the plaintiff prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the liquor store was negligent per se by selling the wine in violation of the "blue law" prohibiting Sunday liquor sales.
- Yes, because the accident would not have occurred but for the sale of the wine to the customer.
- No, because the purpose of the "blue law" prohibiting Sunday liquor sales was not to prevent accidents caused by drivers driving while intoxicated.
- No, because the clerk did not violate the dram shop statute, and his violation of the "blue law" resulted from the clock's malfunctioning.


Question: A state has a statute prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to any person under the age of 17. Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not less than $500 or more than $5,000 The state courts have interpreted this statute as a public welfare offense requiring no particular mental state for its violation. As such, this is a strict liability crime whereby culpability is imposed on a defendant for doing the proscribed act. The defendant, a recovering alcoholic, worked as a cashier at a drug store. Late one night while the defendant was working alone, he got the urge to have a drink. He opened a bottle of rum that the store sold and soon began drinking. A short time later, the defendant became inebriated and passed out. Not long thereafter, a 15-year-old girl entered the store to purchase a package of cigarettes. She took a box off the shelf and went to the cashier's counter to pay for them. Seeing the defendant lying on the floor, unconscious, the girl left the exact price for the cigarettes on the countertop and left the store. If the defendant is prosecuted for violating the state statute, he should be found

Choices:
- guilty, because the offense does not require any mental state.
- guilty, because the defendant's intoxication was voluntaiy.
- not guilty, because the defendant was unconscious.
- not guilty, because the defendant's employer is vicariously liable for the violation that occurred.


Question: A stockbroker became despondent because the economy was terrible and all of his clients had lost substantial amounts of money on their investments. The stockbroker decided to end his life by jumping off a bridge. He walked to the middle of the bridge, climbed over the railing, stood on the tiny ledge on the edge of the bridge, and prepared to jump. A taxi driver who happened to be crossing the bridge at that moment saw what the stockbroker was doing. The taxi driver slammed on his brakes, jumped out of his taxi, started running toward the stockbroker, and yelled, "Don't do it!" Pleased to hear that someone cared about him, the stockbroker changed his mind about committing suicide and decided that he wanted to live. At that moment, however, the stockbroker started to lose his balance, and his feet began to slip off the small, grimy ledge of the bridge. Just as the stockbroker started to fall, the taxi driver reached him and grabbed the back of his jacket. The taxi driver hung on tightly to the jacket and nearly was pulled over the side of the bridge, but he managed to hang on. Using every bit of strength he could muster, the taxi driver pulled the stockbroker back up and onto the bridge. The stockbroker was relieved to have been saved from falling. Unfortunately, the taxi driver suffered a severe injury to his back from the strain of hanging on to the stockbroker and pulling him back up onto the bridge. A statute in the jurisdiction makes attempted suicide a crime. If the taxi driver asserts a claim against the stockbroker to recover damages for his injuries, will he prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the stockbroker did not intend to harm anyone other than himself.
- No, because attempted suicide was a criminal offense in the jurisdiction.
- Yes, because the stockbroker put himself in a position of peril.
- Yes, because he succeeded in saving the stockbroker's life.


Question: A city has enacted an anti-noise statute that "prohibits amplification devices operated in public places which emit loud and raucous noises. " The municipality passed the law to protect the quiet and tranquility of its residents and to avoid distractions to traffic. A high school student was driving in his car and listening to punk music on his car stereo system, which included a set of 12-inch subwoofers mounted in the rear. As the student drove past the high school, he turned up the volume to its highest level. A police car drove alongside the student and, hearing the loud and raucous music; the police officers arrested the student and charged him with violating the anti- noise statute. Before the student was brought to trial, the highest court in the state ruled the statute unconstitutional as vague and overbroad. As a result, the charges against the student were dropped, and his case was dismissed. Thereafter, the district attorney's office decided to prosecute the student for violating a state attempt statute. The attempt statute provided that legal impossibility was no defense. Thereupon, the student was charged with attempting to violate the anti-noise statute. At trial, the student took the stand to testifi on his own behalf. He testified that when he was arrested, he had purposely turned up the stereo to its highest level because his favorite song was playing. Will the student be found guilty of violating the attempt statute?

Choices:
- Yes, because he possessed the requisite intent.
- Yes, because dismissal of the initial charge was not a final judgment and, therefore, double jeopardy does not attach.
- No, because double jeopardy precludes prosecution for attempt after the initial prosecution was dismissed.
- No, because a defendant cannot be retried for attempted commission of a crime that has been ruled unconstitutional by a state's highest court.


Question: A man offered to sell his barbecue to his neighbor for $100. After receiving the man's offer, the neighbor responded, "Let me think it over. " The man then said, "If you say so. " The next day, the man sold the barbecue to his brother for $100. Thereafter, the neighbor decided to accept the man's offer, but learned from a reliable source that the barbecue had been sold to the brother. If the neighbor sues the man for breach of contract, judgment for

Choices:
- the man, because the offer to the neighbor terminated when the neighbor learned of the sale to the brother.
- the man, because there was no consideration to keep the offer open for an extended period of time.
- the neighbor, because the offer became irrevocable for a reasonable time when the man allowed the neighbor to "think it over. "
- the neighbor, because, he is a merchant.


Question: A woman was employed as a sales clerk at a department store. She worked in the women's lingerie section. One evening around closing time, the woman took a diamond necklace from a cabinetin the jewelry section of the department store and wrapped it in tissue paper. The woman then surreptitiously stuffed the necklace in a shopping bag, intending to remove it when she left the store. Moments later, the store owner approached the woman and told her she needed to stay late in order to do inventory. While the woman was completing inventory, the owner discovered the necklace and called the police. The woman is most likely guilty of

Choices:
- attempted larceny.
- larceny.
- false pretenses.
- embezzlement.


Question: A plaintiff sued a defendant in connection with the dissolution of a partnership they had formed to run a parcel delivery service. They had relied on a business attorney in establishing the business. After the business failed, the plaintiff and the defendant disagreed about their respective obligations. At trial, both have hired new counsel. The plaintiff calls the business attorney to testify to representations the defendant made in meetings she had with the plaintiff and the business attorney. The defendant objects to the business attorney's testimony, invoking the attorney-client privilege. Should the court uphold the defendant's privilege claim?

Choices:
- No, because the business attorney's professional relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant has ended.
- No, because the plaintiff and the defendant consulted the business attorney jointly.
- Yes, because either the plaintiff or the defendant may block disclosure of statements made during such meetings.
- Yes, because either the plaintiff or the defendant may claim the privilege on behalf of the partnership.


Question: A grain broker specializes in exotic grains for the growing organic-food market. Using his network of contacts across the globe, he is able to find sources for almost any kind of grain, grown anywhere in the world, to be shipped anywhere in the world. Last year, an organic food co-op asked the grain broker to find quinoa for them. The grain broker said, "I'll do it. It'll cost you market rate plus the commission. " The grain broker found the quinoa and had it shipped to the co-op at a cost of $15 per bushel plus a 20% commission. The co-op paid $15 per bushel plus an 8% commission. The grain broker brought suit, claiming that the appropriate commission was 20%. The grain broker introduced business records and other documentary evidence establishing that he normally charges a commission of between 10% and 20% for grains, with a higher commission for more exotic grains. The owner of the co-op called another grain broker, a competitor of the plaintiff, to testify. The witness testified that he never charges more than an 8% commission when asked to locate exotic grains for his customers. The trial judge should rule this testimony

Choices:
- admissible as evidence of customary business practices in the community.
- admissible as a proper lay opinion.
- inadmissible as hearsay.
- inadmissible as irrelevant.


Question: A musician owned a summer cottage on the lake. A neighbor, an adjoining land owner, started a sand business, which required him to do heavy hauling of sand, rocks, dirt, and other materials on his property. The neighbor's excessive excavating in the course of conducting his sand removal business causes the collapse of a large storage building on the musician's property. If the musician brings an action to recover damages for the collapse of his storage building, the musician will probably

Choices:
- be successful if he can prove that the neighbor was negligent in his excavations.
- be successful, because the neighbor would be strictly liable for his removal of lateral support.
- not be successful, because the neighbor could not be held liable for damage to an artificial structure such as a storage building.
- not be successful, because an adjacent land owner is under no affirmative duty to laterally support his neighbor's land.


Question: One afternoon, police officers observed a man and a14-year-old girl smoking marijuana together. They arrested the man and charged him with the separate offenses of (1) possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and (2) contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The girl was also arrested and charged with being an accomplice to the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. At trial, the girl's best defense is that

Choices:
- smoking marijuana does not necessarily make her an accomplice to the crime.
- the man, the adult principal, must be convicted before any prosecution can be maintained against a minor.
- a minor cannot be prosecuted for an adult crime.
- since the statute was designed to protect minors, the girl cannot be prosecuted as an accomplice.


Question: Late one night, co-defendants broke into a warehouse and proceeded to load the large crates of appliances onto their truck. As they were leaving, one of the co-defendants inadvertently threw his cigarette butt into a refuse pile of old cardboard boxes and papers. Soon afterward, the refuse ignited into a small fire. Although the co-defendants had time to douse the fire without any danger to themselves, neither did so. Instead, they climbed into the truck and fled. Meanwhile, the fire quickly spread, engulfing the entire warehouse in flames. At common law, the co-defendants should be found guilty of

Choices:
- burglary and arson.
- larceny and arson.
- larceny only.
- burglary, larceny, and arson.


Question: A patient domiciled in State A sued a surgeon domiciled in State B in a federal court in State A, alleging claims for malpractice. The surgeon moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and set discovery cutoff and trial dates. The surgeon has appealed the denial of the motion. Should the appellate court hear the merits of the surgeon's appeal?

Choices:
- No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.
- No, because the district court's decision on jurisdiction is final.
- Yes, because a contrary appellate decision could terminate the action.
- Yes, because the surgeon's personal- jurisdiction challenge raises a constitutional question.


Question: A state law provides for an award of damages against anyone who publishes the name of a rape victim. Pursuant to that law, a woman sued a local newspaper in state court after the newspaper identified her as a rape victim. The state trial and appellate courts rejected the claim, holding that the state law was invalid under both the state constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state supreme court affirmed, holding specifically: "We think that this well-intentioned law very likely violates the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. We need not, however, decide that issue, because the law assuredly violates our state constitution, which provides even greater protection to the right of the press to report the news." The woman petitioned for review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Is the U.S. Supreme Court likely to review the state supreme court judgment?

Choices:
- No, because the First Amendment prohibits the imposition of liability for the publication of truthful information.
- No, because the judgment of the state supreme court rests upon an adequate and independent state-law ground.
- Yes, because the supremacy clause does not permit a state to create rights greater than those conferred by the federal Constitution.
- Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to cases arising under federal law.


Question: A son loaned his father a large sum of money. The father signed a 10-year promissory note and secured the note with a mortgage on his farm. The mortgage was promptly recorded. The next year, the father died intestate. The father's heirs were the son and his two sisters. The sisters first learned of the mortgage just after their father died. The sisters now assert that the son, their brother, holds the mortgage for their benefit as well as for himself because as a tenant in common with his sisters, he has a fiduciary duty toward them. There are no applicable statutes. Are the sisters correct?

Choices:
- No, because the mortgage was granted before the tenancy in common was created.
- No, because the three siblings took the farm as tenants in common rather than as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- Yes, because a fiduciary relationship exists among tenants in common.
- Yes, because their three interests are equal.


Question: A motorist was traveling at 5 miles per hour when she became distracted, and negligently tapped the rear of another vehicle. A passenger in the struck vehicle had a rare medical condition that made her highly vulnerable to any slight physical impact or intrusion. The minimal impact caused the passenger to lightly bump her shoulder against the door, which triggered her rare immunosuppressant disease to surface. The passenger became permanently incapacitated from the impact. She sued the negligent motorist for all of her injuries. A physician submitted a report stating that the collision was a substantial factor in causing the disability. Has the plaintiff stated a claim for relief under prevailing legal principles?

Choices:
- Yes, because in the law of negligence the defendant takes the plaintiff "as he finds her."
- No, because the motorist is only liable for foreseeable injuries that are not of psychological origin.
- No, because the victim's psychosomatic reaction is usually held to be malingering under the law.
- Yes, because the victim in this case is called a "predictably unpredictable plaintiff."


Question: If there is a conflict between a congressional act and a valid treaty, how is it resolved?

Choices:
- The congressional act always prevails
- The valid treaty always prevails
- The last in time prevails
- The president decides


Question: A statute passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President authorizes a federal agency to select a site for and to construct a monument honoring members of the capitol police force killed in the line of duty. The statute appropriates the necessary funds but provides that the funds may not be expended until both houses of Congress have adopted a concurrent resolution, not subject to presentment to the President, approving the agency's plans for the monument's location and design. Is the provision requiring further congressional approval before expenditure of the funds constitutional?

Choices:
- No, because decisions regarding the placement and design of government-owned structures are an exclusively executive function with which Congress may not interfere by any means.
- No, because the provision amounts to an unconstitutional legislative interference with an executive function.
- Yes, because Congress may attach reasonable conditions to its appropriation of funds to executive departments, and its special interest in the members of its own police force makes the provision a reasonable condition.
- Yes, because the provision is part of a statute that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.


Question: Mary, a wealthy St. Petersburg widow, executed her first and only will on May 15, 1990 and died on August 18, 1990. Her will provided that her estate be divided equally between her only child, Joan, and the Salvation Army of Largo. How will Mary's estate actually be distributed?

Choices:
- 100% to Joan.
- 100% to Joan if she files a timely petition requesting that the devise to the Salvation Army be avoided.
- 50% to Joan and 50% to the Salvation Army.
- 50% to Joan and the income from the remaining 50% to Joan for life, remainder to the Salvation Army, if Joan files a timely petition protesting the devise to the Salvation Army.


Question: A condominium development consists of two buildings, one with balconies attached to each unit, and one withno balconies. For safety concerns, the condominium association amended the covenants and restrictions toprohibit future sales of balcony units to families with minor children. The amendment did not affect families withchildren already living in balcony units. The amendment was promptly recorded. The condominium associationhad a valid covenant providing that all sales had to be approved by the association. Subsequent to the effective date of the amendment, the owner of a balcony unit contracted to sell it to a familywith minor children. Before the closing, the association told the buyers that because they had minor children,they could not buy the unit. The association further told the buyers that numerous units were available in thebuilding without balconies. After receiving this notification, the buyers complained to a fair housing agency, claiming that the amendmentwas unenforceable because it violated federal fair housing laws. Is there reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred?

Choices:
- No, because families with children are allowed to purchase units in the building without balconies.
- No, because the amendment is based on legitimate safety issues.
- Yes, because families with children are already living in units with balconies.
- Yes, because families with children cannot be segregated within the condominium development.


Question: An orange grove and a grapefruit grove are two parcels abutting each other. A citrus grower owns the orange grove in fee simple and maintains both his dwelling house and the business he operates on the orange grove. He has a right of way, granted by a written agreement, across the grapefruit grove for crossing the grapefruit grove on foot, by bicycle, or automobile. A farmer is the owner of the grapefruit grove. The citrus grower's property interest in the use of his right of way across the grapefruit grove may best be described as a (an)

Choices:
- license.
- easement in gross.
- easement appurtenant.
- prescriptive easement.


Question: A manufacturer of snowmobiles produced one model, Model IA, which was a very popular snowmobile. On each of the Model 1 A snowmobiles produced, the manufacturer installed a speed-regulating device that prevented the snowmobiles from exceeding 50 m. p. h. The manufacturer distributed the snowmobile through wholesalers and retailers across the country. In its sales brochures and advertising materials, the manufacturer advises all of its distributors against making any modifications on snowmobiles without first conferring with the manufacturer's staff of engineers. The operator of a shop in a mountain community had the exclusive right to distribute Model 1A snowmobiles in the area. Amid complaints from previous buyers regarding Model lA's speed limitations, the operator removed the speed regulators from all the Model 1A snowmobiles in stock. A buyer purchased from the operator one of the Model 1A snowmobiles that had the speed regulator removed. One day, the buyer was driving the Model 1A snowmobile through a snow-covered field, at speeds in excess of 70 m. p. h. The snowmobile hit a snow-covered rock, causing the buyer to lose control of the snowmobile, crash into a tree, and suffer serious injuries. If the buyer institutes a strict liability in tort action, he will most likely recover against

Choices:
- the manufacturer only.
- the manufacturer, even though it was unaware of the removal of the speed regulator.
- the operator only.
- both the manufacturer and the operator.


Question: A carpenter was driving home one night after a long day of work. He was driving his car north toward an intersection. There were stoplights at the intersection. The light for the carpenter was green, so the carpenter proceeded to drive through the intersection. A bus entered the intersection from the west and slammed into the carpenter's car. The carpenter was seriously injured in the crash and missed several weeks of work while recovering from the injuries. Which of the following facts or inferences, if true, would be most helpful in an action by the carpenter against the driver of the bus?

Choices:
- The bus driver had received three speeding tickets in the past.
- The carpenter's car was in good condition, and it had passed a safety inspection just a week before the accident.
- The traffic signal at the intersection had been inspected the day before the accident and found to be functioning properly.
- The bus driver was operating the bus without a driver's license in violation of the State Motor Vehicle Code.


Question: A seller and a buyer signed a contract of sale for improved real property. The contract contained a financing contingency for a certain percentage of the purchase price. The buyer obtained the requisite financing from a bank. At the closing, the buyer executed a note to the seller for a portion of the purchase price, which note was not secured by a mortgage. The buyer then executed a second note, secured by a mortgage to executed a second note, secured by a mortgage to the bank, applying the bank loan proceeds to the purchase price of the property. The bank had actual knowledge of the prior note to the seller. The bank promptly recorded its mortgage. The buyer is now in default on both notes. There is no applicable statute. Which party has priority?

Choices:
- The bank, because its loan satisfied the financing contingency in the contract of sale.
- The bank, because its note is secured by a purchase money mortgage.
- The seller, because the bank had actual knowledge of the seller's note.
- The seller, because he retained a vendor's lien that was first in time.


Question: A state statute provides that an illegitimate child may not inherit from his father's property. The state law, however, does permit illegitimate children to inherit from and through their mothers. A man died intestate, leaving neither spouse nor any children other than an illegitimate son. The man's wife and his daughter died one year later in a motor vehicle accident. The illegitimate son filed suit in an appropriate court alleging that the state statute, which bars an illegitimate child from sharing in his father's estate is invalid, and that he should be declared the lawful heir of the man's estate. In challenging the validity of the state statute, will the illegitimate son prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because most state laws that discriminate against illegitimate children have been invalidated to ensure that a state's concern over illicit relationships is not the basis for punitive measures against the product of such a relationship.
- Yes, because he has been deprived of property without due process, since his fundamental right to inherit has been compromised without a compelling state need.
- No, because a state may promote the just and expeditious disposition of property at death by denying intestate succession to all illegitimate children.
- No, because discrimination against illegitimate children is not suspect and, therefore, the law does not violate the equal protection clause if it is substantially related to a legitimate state interest.


Question: A resident of a state owned a large tract of virgin forest. The resident conveyed this tract "to the people of the state in fee simple so long as said tract shall remain in its natural state (with exception for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes). "Under state law, conveyances of real property to "the people" of the state are deemed to vest title in the state regarded as a legal entity, and custody over such property resides in an appointed official known as the director of environmental resources. The director granted a logging company the privilege to cut timber on a remote portion of the tract, together with incidental easements of way. The right of the logging company to cut and sell the timber that was to be cleared from the tract would be an example of a (an)

Choices:
- license.
- easement appurtenant.
- easement in gross.
- profit-a-prendre.


Question: A contractor agreed to remodel a homeowner's garage for $5,000. Just before the parties signed the one-page written contract, the homeowner called to the contractor's attention the fact that the contract did not specify a time of completion. The parties orally agreed but did not specify in the contract that the contractor would complete the work in 60 days, and then they both signed the contract. The contract did not contain a merger clause. The contractor failed to finish the work in 60 days. The homeowner has sued the contractor for breach of contract. Is the court likely to admit evidence concerning the parties' oral agreement that the work would be completed in 60 days?

Choices:
- No, because the court must ascertain the meaning of the agreement from the terms of the written contract.
- No, because the oral agreement was merely part of the parties' negotiations.
- Yes, because the contract is ambiguous.
- Yes, because the time limit is an additional term that does not contradict the partially integrated written contract.


Question: The city installed a sewer line across a residential subdivision. The city acquired a valid easement for construction of the sewer from the development company that owned the subdivision. One year later a buyer purchased a house within the subdivision. Unknown to the buyer, the sewer line ran across his property, approximately 10 feet beneath the foundation of his home. The deed that the buyer received from the grantor, the development company, made no mention of the easement. Ten years after the buyer purchased his house, a crack in the sewer line caused water to leak into the buyer's basement. The flooding resulted in extensive damage to his home. The city has abolished governmental immunity. In an appropriate action by the buyer against the city to recover damages, the plaintiff will probably

Choices:
- not prevail, because the sewer line was installed before the buyer purchased the property.
- not prevail, because the city had acquired a valid easement for the sewer line.
- prevail, only if the sewer line was negligently maintained.
- prevail, because under the circumstances, the sewer line constituted a public nuisance.


Question: After lengthy negotiations, a buyer and seller signed a written contract for the sale of ten thousand pounds of "quality salmon" for $50,000. Upon delivery, the buyer was surprised to find an assortment of pacific wild salmon, domestic salmon raised in captivity, and mixed east coast salmon. In prior discussions, the parties agreed on all pacific wild salmon for fulfillment of the order, and none of the other inferior types were discussed. Does the parol evidence rule apply to preclude the buyer's testimony regarding what kind of salmon the parties' intended by the term "quality salmon" in the written contract?

Choices:
- No, the parol evidence rule does not apply to preclude testimony in cases such as this one where the testimony would explain what the parties meant by the terms they used.
- Yes, the parol evidence rule applies to preclude the testimony because the testimony would add to or contradict the final signed writing.
- No, the parol evidence rule does not apply because the contract was reduced to writing.
- Yes, the parol evidence rule applies to preclude the testimony because the terms of the contract were not recorded and preserved at the time of signing the contract.


Question: A retiree owned a building in a city. Several years ago, an artist, in a signed writing, entered a three- year lease agreement with the retiree. The artist agreed to pay $800 monthly rent for the third-floor apartment in the retiree's building. The original three-year term had long since expired, but the artist has continued to pay his rent, and the retiree continued to accept it. The building became infested with rats after a restaurant was opened in the adjacent building. The artist could not tolerate the rats and served notice on the retiree that he was moving to another city and has not been heard from since. At common law, what remedy was available to the retiree before she accepted the first rental payment after the end of the initial three-year period?

Choices:
- Eviction of the artist for non-payment of rent.
- Recovery of the difference between the lease price and the fair market value of the leasehold for a year.
- Recovery of double the rent prorated on a monthly basis for the number of months the artist was on the premises beyond the three- year period.
- Require that the artist move out immediately or be held responsible for three years' rent.


Question: On September 1, a manufacturer of portable drinking fountains mailed to a drinking fountain retailer a signed offer that stated: "Have 200 drinking fountains available at $100 each for October delivery. Be advised that this offer will remain open until October 1. "On September 30, the retailer mailed the following letter, which was received by the manufacturer on October 1: "Your offer is hereby accepted, but request delivery of 100 drinking fountains in October and 100 in November. "However, on September 29, the manufacturer sent a fax to the retailer revoking its offer, which was received the same day. This revocation is

Choices:
- valid, because the retailer had not changed its position in reliance on the September 1 offer.
- valid, because there was no consideration to support an option contract.
- not valid, because the retailer had 90 days in which to accept.
- not valid, because the manufacturer gave assurance that the offer would remain open until October 1.


Question: There is a newcomer who joins a small town in the middle of nowhere, where she gets a job as a city employee. The city manual requires that newcomers pay a higher contribution to the city's employee betterment fund for the first three years of employment. Newcomer refuses to pay a higher contribution than other employees, whereupon she is terminated. Can she make a successful equal protection argument to fight for her job?

Choices:
- No, she is not a member of a suspect class as there cannot be a "class-of-one" in the employment law context.
- No, the request for the contribution was not unreasonable and cannot support an equal protection argument.
- Yes, she can claim a class of one who is being discriminated against.
- Yes, she can claim membership in a group of newcomers who are coming and are being treated differently than everyone else, even if she is the only newcomer she knows of at this time.


Question: A husband and wife were about to leave on vacation for one month. They thought it would be a great idea to have new carpeting installed in their home while they were away. They contacted a reputable carpeting company, which offered to do the job for $7,000. The husband and wife agreed, gave a set of house keys to the carpeting company, and left on vacation. A week later, the carpeting company discovered that they had overbooked their installation staff and could not finish all of the jobs for which they had contracted. The carpeting company contacted a workman whom they had used before, and told him about the job they were to perform for the husband and wife. The workman agreed to do the installation in exchange for the payment from the husband and wife. When the husband and wife returned from vacation, they were happy with the work and sent a check for $7,000 to the carpeting company, which deposited the check. If the workman now seeks to recover for services he performed, he will

Choices:
- recover against the husband and wife only.
- recover against the carpeting company only.
- recover against either the husband and wife or the carpeting company.
- not recover, because he was not in privity of contract.


Question: On February 15, a company that manufactures metal sidings for home exteriors received the following order from a builder: "Please ship 300 sheets of 1/4-inch refabricated aluminum siding. Delivery by April 1. "On March 8, the company shipped 300 sheets of 1/2-inch refabricated aluminum siding, which were received by the builder on March 10. The following day, the builder sent the following fax to the company: "Be advised that your shipment is rejected. Order stipulated 1/4-inch sheets. " This fax was received by the company, but the builder did not ship the nonconforming aluminum sheets back to the company. Did the builder properly reject the shipment delivered on March 10?

Choices:
- Yes, because the aluminum sheets were nonconforming goods.
- Yes, because the company did not notify the builder that the 1/2-inch sheets were for accommodation only.
- No, because the builder waived its right to reject the nonconforming goods by not returning them promptly to the company.
- No, because the company could accept the builder's offer by prompt shipment of either conforming or nonconforming goods.


Question: An entrepreneur from State A decided to sell hot sauce to the public, labeling it ÒBest Hot Sauce.Ó A company incorporated in State B and headquartered in State C sued the entrepreneur in federal court in State C. The complaint sought $50,000 in damages and alleged that the entrepreneur's use of the name ÒBest Hot SauceÓ infringed the company's federal trademark. The entrepreneur filed an answer denying the allegations, and the parties began discovery. Six months later, the entrepreneur moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant the entrepreneur's motion?

Choices:
- No, because the company's claim arises under federal law.
- No, because the entrepreneur waived the right to chal-lenge subject-matter jurisdiction by not raising the issue initially by motion or in the answer.
- Yes, because although the claim arises under federal law, the amount in controversy is not satisfied.
- Yes, because although there is diversity, the amount in controversy is not satisfied.


Question: A state criminal law prohibits the publication of any description of the details of the execution of any prisoner who is sentenced to death by the courts of the state. Although the law allows a specified number of reporters to observe an execution, only the prison warden's official statement that the prisoner was "executed as provided by law" at a certain time and date may be published. The purpose of the law is to protect the public, particularly children, from the details of executions. After a particular execution was mishandled, causing the prisoner to suffer, a newspaper in the state published a story describing the event in detail. The story was written by the newspaper's reporter, who was permitted to observe the execution but did not promise prison officials that he would report only the warden's official statement. A prosecutor subsequently filed charges against the newspaper for publishing the details of the execution in violation of the state law. Is this prosecution constitutional?

Choices:
- No, because the prosecution seeks to punish the publication of lawfully obtained, truthful information about a matter of public significance, without adequate justification.
- No, because the reporter did not promise prison officials that he would report only the warden's official statement about the execution.
- Yes, because publication of the details of such events might cause psychological damage to some children.
- Yes, because the newspaper should have brought an action to test the validity of the law before publishing the reporter's story.


Question: A woman is engaged in the retail sale of widgets throughout the United States. On March 7, the woman sent the following purchase order to a manufacturer of widgets:"Promptly ship 1,000 widgets, catalogue #B4-IEU, at the current wholesale price to our warehouse. Thank you for your attention to this matter. "This order was received by the manufacturer on March 9. The next day, the manufacturer replied by fax:"Your order has been received. Shipment date will be March 12. Price $50 for each widget delivered. Be advised that these are the last widgets, under catalogue #B4-IEU, that we can deliver, since this variety is no longer being manufactured. "Upon receipt of the fax, the woman immediately sent the following fax:"Cancel our previous order for 1,000 widgets under catalogue #B4-IEU. Price too high. "Assume $50 per widget was the current wholesale market price. Was an enforceable contract in effect between the woman and the manufacturer?

Choices:
- No, because the woman's order was too indefinite to constitute an offer, since it didn't contain a price term.
- No, because even if the woman's order was a valid offer, it was effectively revoked prior to acceptance.
- Yes, because the woman's order created a valid option contract.
- Yes, because the manufacturer's fax of March 10 constituted an acceptance of the woman's offer.


Question: A criminal defendant was convicted at a jury trial of several counts of fraud. At sentencing the court made additional factual findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that resulted in the addition of a 10-year enhancement to the sentence, which was over and above the maximum provided for by the jury's verdict. Defense counsel objected that the judge-made enhancement was unconstitutional and denied his right to a jury trial on that issue. Does counsel have a valid constitutional argument?

Choices:
- No, sentencing laws widely authorize the sentencing court to engage in fact-finding that is based on a preponderance of the evidence.
- No, it has never been decided that a defendant has a right to be judged on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Yes, judicial fact-finding that increases the maximum sentence over what the jury's verdict allows is unconstitutional.
- Yes, it is unconstitutional for a court to use its discretion to fashioning a defendant's sentence.


Question: Recently, Congress enacted a statute requiring all boat owners to register their boats with a newly created federal boat registry. Among the purposes of the statute are the prevention of theft of boats in coastal waters and the protection of the rights of individual boat owners throughout the United States. Congress enacted the statute despite the fact that all states require boat owners to register their craft with the state department of motor vehicles. In addition, there is uncontradicted evidence that most stolen boats are kept or resold in the state in which the theft occurred. Nonetheless, an increasing number of boats are transported to other states and other countries for resale. Is the statute likely to be held constitutional?

Choices:
- No, because most stolen boats remain within the state in which they were stolen.
- No, because the registration of boats is a matter reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
- Yes, because Congress could determine that the transportation of stolen boats affects interstate commerce.
- Yes, because Congress has the power to regulate property for the general welfare.


Question: A woman leased a condo from the owner for a period of one year. After six months, the owner gave the woman a written option to purchase the condo for $100,000 before the expiration of the lease. With the owner's approval, the woman spent $10,000 to have the kitchen remodeled to her personal specifications. One month before the end of the lease, the owner notified the woman that he was revoking the option to purchase the condo. One week later, the woman delivered a written notice of acceptance of the option, but the owner refused to sell. If the woman initiates suit for breach of contract, which of the following is her strongest argument that an enforceable contract was formed between her and the owner?

Choices:
- Because the woman had until the expiration of the lease to accept the offer, the owner's revocation would be ineffective.
- Because the owner was a merchant, the written offer was irrevocable for a period not exceeding three months.
- Because the owner's offer invited a return promise as acceptance, the woman manifested her intent to accept by remodeling the kitchen.
- After the woman paid to have the kitchen remodeled, an option contract resulted, because the owner knew the woman was relying on the offer to her detriment.


Question: The police were at the scene of an accident, assisting injured victims and clearing traffic. One car stopped in traffic was creating a distraction by blasting rap music. A police officer told the driver to turn it down, which he did. While explaining this, the officer spotted a handgun next to the driver on the seat. State law allowed the carrying of a concealed or unconcealed weapon. The officer ordered him out of the car for safety concerns. The officer drew her gun and pointed it at him as he got out, threatening to shoot him if he was not compliant. Other officers approached with weapons drawn. The driver was put on the ground and handcuffed. Drugs were found inside the car and he was charged with drug possession. He filed a motion to suppress, claiming a Fourth Amendment violation. What is the most likely decision of the court?

Choices:
- The driver was acting erratically by blasting music in the middle of an auto accident investigation, and when a gun was spotted this justified a custodial interrogation and a search of the car.
- The officer had a right to separate the driver from the gun, and the ensuing procedures and search were reasonably calculated to protect the officers and the other motorists.
- The officer in effect overreacted to the initial purpose of the stop, and initiated an arrest procedure without probable cause to do so, and thus the drugs will be suppressed.
- The drugs will be suppressed because the officer had no right to order the driver out of the car simply because a legal weapon was observed on the seat.


Question: While on vacation, two friends went scuba diving in the ocean. Each of them was equipped with a spear gun, which they planned to use to kill tuna. As they were swimming, both men saw what appeared to be a large fin entangled in a nearby coral reef. Simultaneously, they shot their spear guns at the projecting wing-like figure. Unbeknownst to either of the friends, it was not a fish but rather another scuba diver. The victim was struck and slightly wounded by one of the spears. The victim asserts a claim for damages against the two friends. At trial, the judge should instruct the jury to rule

Choices:
- in favor of both defendants if no evidence is presented showing who actually shot the spear that injured the victim.
- against both defendants jointly unless one of them proves that he did not shoot the spear that struck the victim.
- against each defendant for one-half of the amount of damages, because they both acted independently and not jointly.
- against each defendant for one-half of the amount of damages, because they both shot their spear guns simultaneously.


Question: A buyer purchased a new convertible from an automobile dealership. A few weeks later, the buyer began smelling a pungent gasoline odor in the vehicle. The buyer immediately took the car to the dealership and told the service manager what was wrong. The service manager indicated that he would take care of the problem and contact the buyer when the car was ready. The next day, the buyer was informed that the problem had been corrected and the car was available for pickup. The buyer then went to the dealership, took possession of his car, and drove off. After traveling about five miles, the buyer again smelled gasoline fumes. Irritated that the problem had not been corrected, the buyer decided to drive back to the dealership. As he was doing so, the car suddenly exploded, and the buyer suffered third-degree bums over 90 percent of his body. A subsequent investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by a defective gas tank that had ruptured. This produced a gasoline leak that was ignited by sparks from the car's underbody. A reasonable inspection would have disclosed the defective gas tank. The trouble the buyer had described to the service manager was indicative of such a problem. If the buyer asserts a claim against the manufacturer of the convertible for damages for his injuries, will the buyer prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, if the dealership should have replaced the gas tank.
- Yes, because the buyer's injury was caused by the defective gas tank.
- No, if the buyer should have realized the gasoline smell presented a hazardous condition and stopped the car before the explosion occurred.
- No, unless the gas tank was defective when the car left the manufacturer's plant.


Question: During a federal grand jury investigation into money laundering, a man's business and tax records were subpoenaed by the government. The man invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination to prevent production of the records in his possession. The court would most likely

Choices:
- compel production of the records, because the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable.
- order a preliminary hearing to determine if the man has grounds to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
- permit the man to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege, since such records may have the same incriminating effect as testimony.
- admit the records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.


Question: Under which of the following situations would the defendant not be guilty of the attempted crime at common law?

Choices:
- A defendant wanted to receive the proceeds from her insurance policy on her home. After a careful examination of her policy, she decided that the best way for her to collect would be to stage a cooking accident in her own home and have the structure bum down. She decided that bacon would be the best way to do it because all of the extra grease in the pan could easily catch on fire. After cooking the bacon, the defendant left the flame on and left her home. Unbeknownst to the defendant, she left the window open and a breeze blew out the pilot. When the defendant returned home, she found that there was no fire. She was arrested and charged with attempted arson.
- A defendant was dancing with his girlfriend at a local club when she collapsed in his arms. The defendant then carried his girlfriend to his car and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Although the defendant believed that his girlfriend was intoxicated, she had, in fact, died of a heart attack while dancing. The defendant is charged with attempted rape.
- After a preliminary examination, a defendant informed a patient that she was two months pregnant. Although the defendant knew that abortions were illegal in this jurisdiction, he agreed to perform an abortion on the patient, anyway. During the operation, it was discovered that the patient was not pregnant. The defendant is charged with attempt to perform an illegal abortion.
- A defendant called his friend to obtain some marijuana. The friend told the defendant that he had some for sale. Believing that his friend had some high-quality marijuana, the defendant purchased an ounce of the substance, which he did not know was actually oregano. While the defendant was smoking the oregano on the street corner, a police officer arrested him and charged him with attempted illegal use of a controlled substance.


Question: A sister and brother own a ranch as joint tenants. If the sister transfers her interest by quitclaim deed to her friend without the brother's knowledge, what interest, if any, does the friend have in the ranch?

Choices:
- No interest.
- An undivided one-half interest with right of survivorship.
- An undivided one-half interest without right of survivorship.
- A lien against the entire property.


Question: A state recidivist statute made it a felony punishable by life imprisonment without parole to be convicted for the fifth time of any form of criminal theft involving goods or money of $100 or more. A man's record showed four prior convictions for nonviolent crimes involving theft or bad checks, each one pertaining to property or cash in excess of $100 but not in excess of $500. On the fifth conviction, after conviction of passing a $100 bad check, the court sentenced him to life without parole under a repeat offender statute. He challenged the sentence and the statute based on the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Will the Court likely invalidate the sentence on these facts?

Choices:
- Yes, because the gravity of the sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime, none of which involved bodily injury, and there is no possibility of parole.
- Yes, because life imprisonment can never be an appropriate punishment for criminality that does not take human life.
- No, because theft and passing bad checks has become a national emergency warranting tough remedial action to protect the economy, institutions and persons being victimized.
- No, because it is improper for the courts to attempt to interject their value judgments into a state's ostensibly reasonable legislative sentencing schemes.


Question: In a prosecution of a defendant for receiving stolen property, an informer testified that the defendant sold him a stolen stereo, which the defendant knew had been stolen. During direct examination, the informer testified that he was unemployed but sometimes worked part-time as a substitute teacher. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney asked the informer if he had recently filed an application to become a police officer. The informer responded affirmatively. The defendant's attorney then asked the informer the following question:"Isn't it true that you hope that by acting as an undercover agent, the police department will overlook the fact that you had two misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana?" The prosecuting attorney immediately objected. The trial judge should rule that the defendant's attorney's inquiry concerning the informer's hopes and misdemeanor convictions is

Choices:
- improper, as evidence of conduct not related to truthfulness.
- improper, as relating to convictions of crimes not punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year.
- proper, as tending to show the informer's bad character for truthfulness.
- proper, as relevant to the informer's possible bias.


Question: On May 1, a homeowner and a painter entered into a contract whereby the painter was to paint the homeowner's home in exchange for $10,000. The contract stated:"The painting is to be done during the month of June, and payment is to be made within one week after the painting is completed. The rights under this contact are not to be assigned. "The painter started the painting on June 1. On June 10, the painter assigned to his nephew the right to receive payment on the painter's contract with the homeowner. Which of the following statements is most accurate with regard to the painter's assignment to his nephew?

Choices:
- The homeowner would not be obligated to pay the nephew, since the contract was nonassignable.
- Since personal service contracts of this nature are nonassignable, the homeowner would be under no duty to pay the nephew.
- The assignment would constitute a novation, relieving the homeowner of liability.
- The assignment would be irrevocable if it were reduced to writing and signed by the painter.


Question: Police officers had probable cause to believe that a man had committed a series of armed bank robberies with an accomplice. The officers obtained a valid arrest warrant for the man and went to his house to arrest him. The officers found the front door ajar and could hear a radio playing inside. They knocked on the door, identified themselves as police officers, and stated that they had a warrant. Getting no response, the officers entered the house. After the officers called the man's name several times and again identified themselves as police officers, the man emerged from the basement and was arrested. The officers went into the basement to look for the accomplice. They opened a closet door and found cocaine in plain view. They did not find the accomplice. The man was indicted for cocaine possession. He has moved to suppress the cocaine as evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

Choices:
- No, because the officers discovered the cocaine during a lawful protective sweep of the house looking for the man's accomplice.
- No, because the search was incident to the man's arrest.
- Yes, because the officers did not have a search warrant.
- Yes, because the officers did not have probable cause to believe that cocaine would be in the closet.


Question: In a written contract, a seller agreed to deliver to a buyer 1,000 widgets at a stipulated price of $10 each, FOB at the seller's place of business. The contract stipulated that "any party who wishes to assign this contract must have the written consent of the other party. " On March 1, the seller placed the widgets on board a cargo vessel that was destined to transport the widgets to the buyer. On March 2, the buyer received the following telegram from the seller:"Please be advised that the widgets are in transit. In addition, I hereby assign all my rights under our contract to our creditor. "The buyer did not consent to the assignment. The next day, the ship carrying the widgets sank in a violent storm, destroying its entire cargo. If the creditor brings an appropriate action against the buyer, the former will most likely recover

Choices:
- nothing, because the buyer never assented to the assignment.
- nothing, because the buyer never received the widgets.
- the contract price of$10,000.
- the difference between the contract price and the market value of the widgets.


Question: One morning, a woman telephoned her next-door neighbor and asked if she could borrow her car. The woman explained that her car was being serviced and would not be ready for a couple of days. The woman told her neighbor that she had a doctor's appointment that afternoon and would return the car immediately afterwards. The neighbor agreed and gave the woman permission to use her car. As the woman was driving to her doctor's office, she collided with another car. As a result of the accident, the other driver brought suit against the woman and the neighbor to recover for her personal injuries. The other driver asserted a claim against the neighbor for negligent entrustment of an automobile and charged the woman with negligent operation of a motor vehicle. In her case-in-chief, the other driver called a witness to testify to three incidents of careless driving on the woman's part during the past six months. The trial judge should rule the testimony

Choices:
- admissible as circumstantial evidence that the woman was negligent on this occasion.
- admissible, because the witness had personal knowledge of the woman's poor driving record.
- admissible against the neighbor as evidence of the woman's lack of fitness.
- inadmissible, because specific acts are not admissible except to rebut evidence of good character.


Question: During a baseball game, a spectator watching the game started taunting one of the players for striking out. Annoyed by the taunts, the player started an argument with the umpire. When the umpire told the player to be quiet and go back to his team's bench, the player became enraged and savagely attacked the umpire, hitting him in the head with a bat. The spectator who had taunted the player was overcome by humiliation and horror at what occurred, because he was a good friend of the umpire. The spectator suffered no physical injury, but experienced severe nervous shock and brooded over the incident for months. If the spectator asserts an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the baseball player, the spectator will

Choices:
- win, because the player's conduct was extreme and outrageous.
- win, because he was present and witnessed the attack.
- lose, because he was partly responsible for causing the attack to occur.
- lose, because the umpire was not an immediate family member of the spectator.


Question: A man, his nephew, and his son are the owners of three contiguous lots in the city. A downward slope exists from the man's land to the son's land. The man's and the nephew's lots were in an unimproved natural state. The son, however, had lived for 10 years in a house that he had built on his property. In 2009, the man planted trees and shrubbery on his land along the boundary of the nephew's lot. In 2010, the nephew, in preparation for building a house on his lot, carefully excavated an area eight feet deep for the purpose of building a basement. The side of the excavation closest to the man  nephew boundary suddenly collapsed, and a quantity of the man's soil, trees, and shrubbery fell into the hole. The nephew hauled away the debris. In an appropriate action by the man against the nephew to recover for the damage to his land, judgment should be for whom?

Choices:
- The nephew, if he was conducting the excavation work non-negligently.
- The nephew, because he was under no duty to support the man's land in its improved state.
- The man, because a landowner is entitled to support of his land in its natural condition.
- The man, because a landowner has an absolute right to have his land supported by the neighboring land.


Question: A 20-year-old student at a state university enrolled in the university's R. O. T. C (Reserve Officers' Training Corps. ) program. As part of her R. O. T. C. training, the student was required to spend three weeks at a camp for Marine Corps. summer field exercises. While at the camp, the student was given a new synthetic helmet to wear during her basic training. An agency purchased the new high-technology helmets for the Army and Marine Corps. to replace the old "steel pot" headgear worn for decades by U. S. soldiers. These new synthetic helmets were manufactured by a corporation and were made of Kevlar, an extremely tough fiber material with high energy-absorbing qualities that made it stronger in some ways than steel. When the student received her helmet from the Marine Corps. , it was packaged in the original carton supplied by the corporation. On the box, there was a picture that depicted an off-duty marine wearing the helmet while riding a bicycle. One afternoon after training, the student decided to take a ride on her bicycle. Believing that it could be used as a bicycle helmet, the student decided to use it for that purpose. During the ride, the student hit a deep pothole that caused her to be thrown headfirst from the bicycle. As she was flying through the air, the strap from her helmet came loose, and the helmet fell off her head. The student landed on a lawn and was temporarily knocked unconscious. She suffered serious head injuries. If the student asserts a claim against the corporation to recover damages for her injuries, she will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur negligence can be inferred from the fact that the helmet came off the student's head.
- prevail, because the original package depicted a picture of a cyclist wearing the helmet.
- not prevail, because the student was not using the helmet for its intended purpose.
- not prevail, because the helmet had been properly designed by the corporation for its intended use by the Army and Marine Corps.


Question: A driver and passenger were driving to work in the former's automobile one morning. As they were traveling at a speed of 20 m. p. h. (which was within the posted speed limit), the passenger suddenly pointed to an overturned vehicle along the side of the highway and said, "Look at that car upside down. " The driver turned to look at the overturned vehicle. As he was looking toward the side of the road, the driver failed to see an abandoned vehicle with a flat tire in the highway about 200 feet in front of his approaching auto. Seconds later, the driver crashed into the rear of the abandoned auto and was injured. The jurisdiction has a relevant comparative negligence statute in effect. If the driver asserts a claim against the owner of the abandoned auto, the most likely result is that the driver will

Choices:
- recover all of his damages, because the defendant created a dangerous condition.
- recover only a portion of damages, because the abandoned auto was in plain view.
- recover nothing, because he had the last clear chance to avoid the collision.
- recover nothing, because the passenger's act was a supervening cause.


Question: A man who was reportedly a renowned art thief was on trial for stealing several Picassos from a museum. The paintings had been recovered and were in the courtroom. The prosecution presented a professor of art history to authenticate each piece. The defense objected on the basis that the museum curator where the paintings were housed had to identify if these were in fact the paintings that were stolen. Assuming that others will testify to the fact of the burglary, is the court likely to reject this witness as being qualified to authenticate the paintings in question, and why or why not?

Choices:
- Yes, because art works and other physical evidence must be authenticated by their official custodian.
- Yes, because an outside person may be able to partially authenticate the painting but he can't say whether it is the one that was in the museum or that was stolen.
- No, granting the objection will simply waste the court's time if the court has to bring in the museum curator and go through hoops to authenticate the paintings.
- No, because the authentication can be accomplished in several different ways that will verify that it is the genuine piece of art in question.


Question: An on-duty Police Officer hears breaking glass and a blaring alarm, and sees Stan run out of a darkened liquor store at 3 a.m. Stan runs around the corner, out of Officer's view, and hops into a car. Officer sees Stan drive away and pursues, lights flashing. Stan pulls over and Officer arrests him. Officer sees nothing in the passenger compartment, but pops the trunk and finds cash and a baseball bat. Stan's motion to suppress the cash and baseball bat as evidence will likely be

Choices:
- Denied, because the Officer had probable cause to search the trunk.
- Denied, because a search incident to a valid arrest in an automobile always includes the trunk of the automobile.
- Granted, because the trunk area was out of the range of Stan's control.
- Granted, because the arrest was illegal and therefore the evidence is considered to be fruit of the poisonous tree.


Question: One year ago, while driving through an intersection, the defendant's car collided with the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff sued, claiming that the defendant ran a red light. In her case-in-chief, the plaintiff testified that immediately after the accident, a bystander, who was a local resident, screamed at the defendant, "You jerk. . . you drove through the red light. " In his case-in-chief, the defendant now calls a police accident investigator to testify that the plaintiff told him that she "didn't see the color of the light when she entered the intersection because she was dialing a number on her cell phone. "The investigator's testimony should be

Choices:
- admitted, because the plaintiff's inconsistent statement has bearing on her credibility.
- admitted, because the accident investigator gathered the information in the course of his official duties.
- excluded, because the defendant failed to lay a foundation, thus not giving the plaintiff an opportunity to deny or explain her statement.
- excluded, because the plaintiff's statement to the investigator is hearsay.


Question: Cooper is suing March for money damages. Because he believes portions of March's deposition are highly favorable to his case, Cooper's attorney intends to read parts of the deposition at trial instead of calling March to the stand. March objects to Cooper's use of the deposition at trial. What is the court's likely ruling?

Choices:
- Cooper may use the deposition at trial, but, if requested, he must read all parts that in fairness ought to be considered with the part introduced.
- Cooper may use the deposition at trial, but only to contradict or impeach March's prior inconsistent statements or pleadings.
- Cooper may not use the deposition at trial, as March is able to testify and no exceptional circumstances exist.
- Cooper may not use the deposition at trial, as this would make March his witness and immune to impeachment.


Question: A federal statute governing food stamp fraud makes it a crime to knowingly acquire or possess food coupons in a manner not authorized by the statute or the regulations. A grocery store owner purchased discounted food stamps from an undercover agent, and was arrested for violating the statute. At trial, the store owner claimed that the government must prove that he had the specific intent to commit a crime. The government contended it only had to show that he knowingly acquired food stamps, and that this was not a specific intent crime. The trial judge adopted the government's interpretation, and the store owner was convicted. His appeal made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Will the Court likely reverse or affirm the conviction and why?

Choices:
- Conviction reversed, because a store owner is exempt from the statute, which applies only to consumers who use food stamps illegally.
- Conviction reversed, because the better interpretation is that mens rea is included, and the owner must know his conduct is in violation of the criminal laws.
- Conviction affirmed, because the meaning of knowingly does not connote that there must be specific knowledge by the actor that what he is doing is illegal.
- Conviction affirmed, because the modern trend of the law is to recognize criminal liability without mens rea or specific criminal intent.


Question: A state has enacted a criminal statute prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials to any person. The owner of a publication company was prosecuted and convicted of violating the state obscenity law by mailing adults sexual literature that appealed to their prurient interests. During the owner's trial, the judge instructed the jury that determining if the mailed materials were obscene depended in part on whether they were offensive to the average or normal person under contemporary community standards, and that the community standards test must be considered in light of the fact that many children reside in the community. Furthermore, the judge instructed the jury that in determining whether the materials were obscene, it could also consider evidence of pandering, or whether the materials were marketed purposely to appeal to the recipients' prurient interest in sex. The owner appealed her conviction, alleging a denial of her First Amendment rights. Which of the following is the strongest argument why the appellate court should reverse the owner's conviction?

Choices:
- The method by which materials are marketed or advertised is not probative of whether they are obscene.
- It is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy for the government to interfere with the content of closed mailings intended for the private use by consenting adults.
- Under the First Amendment, the community's standards for children may not be applied in determining what constitutes obscenity for adults.
- Obscenity is to be determined by applying national standards, not contemporary community standards.