Criminal Law
John is caught walking out of a store with a bag of groceries he did not pay for. He claims he forgot to pay and did not intend to steal.
Question:
What crime has John committed?
A) Robbery
B) Larceny
C) Burglary
D) Embezzlement
Answer: B) Larceny
Sarah and Lisa enter into a written contract for the sale of a painting. The contract states the description of the painting but omits the specific delivery date. Sarah claims they agreed on delivery in two weeks, while Lisa claims the agreement was for one month. Sarah attempts to introduce oral testimony to establish the delivery date.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct ruling regarding the admission of oral testimony?
A) The court should exclude the testimony, as the written contract is fully integrated and cannot be modified by oral testimony.
B) The court should admit the testimony if it finds the written contract is incomplete and requires clarification regarding the delivery date.
C) The court should admit the testimony to establish the delivery date but only if both parties agree on the oral testimony.
D) The court should exclude the testimony, as oral agreements cannot modify written contracts under any circumstances.
Correct Answer: B) The court should admit the testimony if it finds the written contract is incomplete and requires clarification regarding the delivery date.
Mike, a store owner, knowingly sells an expired can of soup to a customer, Jane. Jane consumes the soup and becomes seriously ill as a result.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct assessment of Mike’s conduct?
A) Mike’s failure to ensure the safety of the product was unreasonable and caused Jane’s illness.
B) Mike acted reasonably because the expiration date was not obvious to the customer.
C) Mike’s actions were reasonable because the expiration of the soup was a minor issue.
D) Jane should have checked the expiration date herself before consuming the soup
Correct Answer: A) Mike’s failure to ensure the safety of the product was unreasonable and caused Jane’s illness.
What is a valid contract?
What is an Offer in Contract Law?
An offer is a proposal made by one party to another indicating a willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms. An offer must be clear, definite, and communicated to the offeree. Once accepted, the offer becomes a binding agreement, but it can be revoked before acceptance.
ick shoots and kills a person in a fit of rage after a heated argument.
Question:
Which of the following crimes is Rick most likely to be charged with?
A) Murder
B) Voluntary manslaughter
C) Involuntary manslaughter
D) Battery
Answer: B) Voluntary manslaughter
Paul agrees to sell his car to Mike under a written contract. The contract states that the car is in "good condition," but there is no mention of the car’s specific model or year. After the sale, Mike learns the car is several years older than he expected. He tries to introduce oral testimony to show Paul promised the car was a 2015 model.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct ruling regarding the admission of oral testimony?
A) The court should admit the testimony because oral promises can modify written contracts regarding the car's model.
B) The court should exclude the testimony because the written contract is silent about the car's model, and oral testimony is not allowed to contradict written terms.
C) The court should admit the testimony because the contract did not specify the model, so oral testimony is needed to complete the agreement.
D) The court should exclude the testimony because oral agreements cannot modify written contracts under any circumstances.
Correct Answer: B) The court should exclude the testimony because the written contract is silent about the car's model, and oral testimony is not allowed to contradict written terms.
Alice, while walking down a sidewalk, slips and falls because a section of the sidewalk was uneven and had not been repaired by the city, despite the city being aware of the hazard.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct assessment of the city's conduct?
A) The city's failure to repair the sidewalk was unreasonable and directly caused Alice’s fall.
B) The city's failure to repair the sidewalk was reasonable because the damage was minor.
C) Alice should have been more careful while walking and noticed the uneven sidewalk.
D) The city is not liable because Alice was not paying attention when walking.
Correct Answer: A) The city's failure to repair the sidewalk was unreasonable and directly caused Alice’s fall.
What are the 7 intentional torts?
Conversion
Trespass to Chattel
Trespass to Land
IIED
Assault
Battery
False Imprisonment
What is Consideration in Contract Law?
Consideration is something of value that is exchanged between parties in a contract. It is a necessary element for a contract to be legally binding. Consideration can be a promise, an act, or forbearance (not doing something), and it must be bargained for between the parties involved.
Mike plans and agrees with a friend to rob a bank. Before they can carry out the robbery, the police arrest Mike for conspiracy.
Question:
What is Mike most likely to be charged with?
A) Attempted robbery
B) Conspiracy to commit robbery
C) Larceny
D) Burglary
Answer: B) Conspiracy to commit robbery
David and Clara enter into a contract for the purchase of office furniture. The written agreement does not specify whether the delivery will be made to David’s home or office. Clara claims they agreed on home delivery, while David asserts that they agreed on office delivery. David attempts to introduce oral testimony to clarify the delivery location.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct ruling regarding the admission of oral testimony?
A) The court should admit the testimony because the contract is ambiguous and requires clarification regarding the delivery location.
B) The court should exclude the testimony, as the written contract is fully integrated and no oral evidence can alter its terms.
C) The court should admit the testimony if both parties agree to the oral evidence presented.
D) The court should exclude the testimony because the contract did not specify the delivery location and therefore cannot be modified.
Correct Answer: A) The court should admit the testimony because the contract is ambiguous and requires clarification regarding the delivery location.
Fact Pattern:
Tom deliberately strikes Bob in the face after Bob insults him, causing Bob to fall and break his arm. Tom is arrested and charged with battery.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct assessment of Tom’s conduct?
A) Tom's actions constituted battery because he intentionally made harmful physical contact with Bob.
B) Tom’s actions did not constitute battery because Bob insulted him first.
C) Tom acted in self-defense, as Bob’s insult justified the physical strike.
D) Tom did not commit battery because Bob could have avoided the injury by stepping back.
Correct Answer: A) Tom's actions constituted battery because he intentionally made harmful physical contact with Bob.
What is Breach of Contract?
A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill its obligations under a legally binding agreement without a lawful excuse. This can include failure to perform the duties specified in the contract, performing them inadequately, or refusing to perform altogether.
What is Criminal Law Assault?
Assault is an intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension in another person of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. It does not require physical contact; the mere threat or attempt to cause harm can be sufficient for an assault charge if the victim believes they are about to be harmed.
John is planning to commit a burglary with his friend, Lisa. However, he does not know that Lisa has secretly brought her cousin, Anna, along for the ride. The police catch John and Lisa in the act, and Anna is arrested for being an accomplice. John is charged with conspiracy to commit burglary. Which of the following is the most likely ruling regarding John's case?
A) John is not guilty because he did not know Anna was with them. B) John is guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary because Anna was present. C) John is not guilty because he did not directly involve Anna in the planning. D) John is guilty because he was part of the plan to commit the burglary.
D) John is guilty because he was part of the plan to commit the burglary.
Eric and Jane sign a written agreement for the lease of a commercial property, but the agreement omits the exact length of the lease term. Eric claims they agreed on a five-year lease, while Jane contends the agreement was for a three-year term. Eric attempts to introduce oral testimony to establish the agreed-upon lease term.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct ruling regarding the admission of oral testimony?
A) The court should admit the testimony if the written contract is incomplete and the lease term must be clarified.
B) The court should exclude the testimony because oral testimony can never modify a written lease agreement.
C) The court should admit the testimony only if the parties agree to the oral testimony.
D) The court should exclude the testimony because the written lease agreement is considered final and cannot be modified.
Correct Answer: A) The court should admit the testimony if the written contract is incomplete and the lease term must be clarified.
A company sells a defective product that causes a fire when used improperly. The manufacturer had received multiple complaints about the product’s safety but chose not to recall or warn consumers.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct assessment of the manufacturer’s conduct?
A) The manufacturer acted unreasonably by failing to warn consumers and recall the product, leading to the fire.
B) The manufacturer acted reasonably because the fire was an isolated incident.
C) The manufacturer was justified in not recalling the product because the defect was minor.
D) Consumers should have been aware of the risks and taken more care when using the product.
Correct Answer: A) The manufacturer acted unreasonably by failing to warn consumers and recall the product, leading to the fire.
What is Negligence?
Negligence refers to the failure to exercise a level of care that a reasonably prudent person would have in similar circumstances, leading to harm or injury to another person. In tort law, for a negligence claim to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused foreseeable harm as a direct result of the breach.
What is Arson?
Arson is the criminal act of intentionally setting fire to property, whether it belongs to oneself or another person, with the intent to cause damage. It is considered a serious felony and can include setting fire to buildings, vehicles, or other structures.
Tom and his friend Jake are planning to rob a bank. However, Tom is unaware that Jake's girlfriend, Emma, is secretly following them in her car. The police stop Tom and Jake near the bank, and Emma is arrested for being an accomplice. Tom is charged with robbery. Which of the following is the most likely ruling regarding Tom's case?
A) Tom is not guilty because he did not know Emma was following them. B) Tom is guilty of robbery because he was involved in the robbery plan. C) Tom is not guilty because he did not directly involve Emma in the robbery. D) Tom is guilty because he was near the robbery location when the crime occurred.
B) Tom is guilty of robbery because he was involved in the robbery plan.
Helen enters into a written contract to sell her house to Mark for $200,000. However, the written contract does not specify whether the price includes the furniture in the house. After the sale, Mark claims that the price should have included the furniture, but Helen argues that the price was for the house alone. Mark attempts to introduce oral testimony to establish that they agreed the furniture was included in the sale price.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct ruling regarding the admission of oral testimony?
A) The court should admit the testimony to clarify the terms of the agreement about the inclusion of furniture in the sale.
B) The court should exclude the testimony because the contract is clear and there is no need for oral evidence to change its terms.
C) The court should admit the testimony only if the written contract specifically mentions the furniture.
D) The court should exclude the testimony because oral agreements cannot modify written contracts under any circumstances.
Correct Answer: A) The court should admit the testimony to clarify the terms of the agreement about the inclusion of furniture in the sale.
Sara borrows her friend’s car without asking and drives it, but while driving, she gets into an accident. The car had a known issue with the brakes, which Sara was unaware of.
Question:
Which of the following is the correct assessment of Sara's conduct?
A) Sara is responsible for the accident because she used the car without ensuring it was safe to drive.
B) Sara is not responsible because she was unaware of the brake issue and had no reason to suspect it.
C) Sara acted reasonably because her friend should have warned her about the brake issue.
D) Sara is not responsible because the accident was unavoidable.
Correct Answer: A) Sara is responsible for the accident because she used the car without ensuring it was safe to drive.
What is Res Ipsa Loquitur?
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin term meaning "the thing speaks for itself." It is a legal doctrine used in tort law, where the circumstances of an accident are so obvious that negligence can be inferred without direct evidence. This rule is often applied in cases where the harm would not ordinarily occur without negligence, such as a surgical instrument being left inside a patient.
What is First Degree Murder?
First degree murder is the most serious form of murder and typically involves premeditation and deliberation, meaning the defendant planned the killing ahead of time and made the decision to carry it out. It may also include felony murder, where a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony, such as robbery or arson. First-degree murder is often punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, depending on the jurisdiction.