Contracts
A Valid Contract
(1) Offer
(2) Acceptance
(3) Consideration
Common Law Burglary
(1) Breaking
(2) and Entering a dwelling
(3) With the intent to commit a felony therein
Diversity Jurisdiction
(1) The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000
AND
(2) There must be complete diversity of the parties.
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Actual Injury
(4) Causation
(5) Proximate Cause
Kill, Capture, Mortally Wound
A farmer in a small town suffering a severe drought contacted a scientist in another county who claimed to have perfected a rainmaking machine. The farmer and the scientist entered into an agreement providing that the scientist would be paid if he made it rain. The agreement did not specify an amount of payment or any deadline by which it must rain. After several days of trying without success, the scientist said that the machine might work better at a higher elevation. A neighbor who lived on higher ground agreed to let the scientist place the rainmaking machine on his land and further told the scientist that if he made it rain before the end of the following day, he would pay him $20,000. The scientist placed the machine on the neighbor’s land. By nightfall of the same day, clouds had begun to gather over the town, and the next morning it was pouring rain.
If the neighbor refuses to pay the $20,000 to the scientist, can the latter enforce the promise to pay?
(a) Yes, because the neighbor’s promise was supported by the consideration that the scientist make it rain by the next night.
(b) Yes, but only in the amount of the reasonable value of his services.
(c) No, because the scientist had a preexisting duty to make it rain as a result of the agreement with the farmer.
(d) No, because the neighbor’s promise constituted no legal detriment to him.
(a) Yes, because the neighbor’s promise was supported by the consideration that the scientist make it rain by the next night.
A statute provides “any person who knowingly sells intoxicating liquor to a person under 21 years of age is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined $1,000 or sentenced to up to six months in jail, or both.” A patron ordered a drink at a bar. The bartender asked for some identification, and the patron produced a driver’s license stating that he was 25 years old. In fact, the patron was only 18 years old, but he had some gray hair and was balding. A plainclothes police officer sitting at the bar witnessed the bartender selling a drink to the patron. The officer knew that the patron was under 21 years old, and demanded to see the patron’s driver’s license. The officer determined it to be false and arrested the bartender for violation of the statute.
Will the bartender likely be found guilty?
(a) Yes, because this type of statute is a strict liability statute and the bartender’s knowledge of the patron’s age is irrelevant.
(b) Yes, because the bartender knew that the patron was under 21 years old.
(c) No, because the bartender made a reasonable mistake concerning the age of the patron.
(d) No, because the patron produced a driver’s license that stated that he was 25 years old.
(c) No, because the bartender made a reasonable mistake concerning the age of the patron.
The plaintiff is a resident of City A, located in the Northern District of State A. The defendant is a resident of City B, located in the Eastern District of State B. The defendant negligently ran a red light in City B, resulting in a collision between his car and the delivery van that the plaintiff was driving. The result: 100 pounds of cork that the plaintiff was delivering wound up striking him in the back of the head, causing severe injuries. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of State A. The defendant moves to dismiss based on improper venue.
How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss?
(a) Grant the motion, because the Northern District of State A is not a place of proper venue and thus the court cannot transfer the case.
(b) Grant the motion, because the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
(c) Deny the motion, but it should transfer the case to the Eastern District of State B.
(d) Deny the motion, because the Northern District of State A is a place of proper venue.
(c) Deny the motion, but it should transfer the case to the Eastern District of State B.
Based on what you know about the reasonable person standard, analyze the following jury instructions. Which one properly presents the reasonable person standard to the jury?
a) "Find in favor of the plaintiff if the evidence persuades you that FoodPlace set up its display in a way that created a risk of injury."
b) "Find in favor of the plaintiff if the evidence persuades you that the way FoodPlace set up its display was less safe than the way FoodPlace has set up other displays in the past."
c) "Find in favor of the plaint iff if the evidence persuades you that FoodPlace set up its display in a way that was less safe than the way a reasonable operator of a supermarket would have set up a display."
d) "Find in favor of the plaintiff if the evidence persuades you that FoodPlace set up its display in a way that was less safe than you would have done if you were the operator of a supermarket like FoodPlace."
c) "Find in favor of the plaint iff if the evidence persuades you that FoodPlace set up its display in a way that was less safe than the way a reasonable operator of a supermarket would have set up a display."
A legal term that refers to the transfer of rights, property, or other benefits from one party to another.
The Mailbox Rule
A contract law principle that states an offer is accepted when the offeree mails their acceptance, not when the offeror receives it.
Hot Pursuit
The hot pursuit doctrine provides that police may pursue a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant when they have probable cause to make an arrest and when that arrest was already in motion in a public place within their jurisdiction.
(1) ease of access to evidence; (2) the cost for witnesses to attend trial; (3) the availability of compulsory process; and (4) other factors that might shorten trial or make it less expensive.
What is the difference between Contributory Negligence & Comparative Negligence?
The main difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence is that the contributory negligence doctrine bars plaintiffs from collecting damages if they are found partially at fault for their accident-related injuries, whereas the comparative negligence doctrine does not.
A man owned a one-acre tract of land on which was located a cabin ideally suited to be used in the winter. A woman adversely possessed the cabin for eight years during the winter season. In the eighth year of her possession, a hunter started to occupy the cabin in the summer. The hunter did this after he had met the man who told the hunter about the cabin, told the hunter he never used the cabin, and told the hunter that he did not care whether the hunter used the cabin.
In the ninth year, the woman brought an ejectment action against the hunter. In this action, the court will likely rule in favor of:
a) The hunter, because he acquired a title by adverse possession.
b) The hunter, because his possession was permissive from the man.
c) The woman, because she owned the cabin by adverse possession.
d) The woman, because, as between herself and the hunter, she was the prior possessor.
b) The hunter, because his possession was permissive from the man.
The owner of farmland entered into a written contract with a prospective tenant of the property to erect a barn with a milking station and silo on the property in exchange for the tenant’s taking a five-year lease on the property. After the agreement was signed, the tenant moved himself and his family onto the property. The farm owner, who had worked for many years as a skilled building contractor before retiring, began the work of building the barn and the silo. However, an injury prevented him from completing the job when it was about two-thirds done. He told the tenant that he would see to it that the work was completed and that he had already entered into an oral contract with his nephew, a novice contractor, to finish the job. However, the nephew failed to complete the job. The tenant brought an action against the nephew for breach of contract.
Which would be the best defense for the nephew?
a) His contract was with the farm owner and not with the tenant.
b) The tenant furnished no consideration.
c) His agreement with the farm owner was oral.
d) The building duties which the nephew took on were not delegable.
d) The building duties which the nephew took on were not delegable.
An underworld informer advised a police investigator that his neighbor was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer had placed bets with the neighbor at this location. The officer obtained a search warrant, based on his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the underworld informer was a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity could not be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police. Armed with the search warrant, police officers went to the neighbor's apartment. They entered when the neighbor opened the door and searched the apartment. They seized various wagering slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant) and placed the neighbor under arrest for illegal gambling. Prior to trial, the neighbor challenges the validity of the search warrant.
Was the search warrant valid?
a) No, because it was based on hearsay information.
b) No, because the officer failed to disclose the identity of the informer, so that the accuracy of his information could not be verified.
c) Yes, because the identity of the informer is never required.
d) Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it is sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of probable cause.
d) Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it is sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of probable cause.
A wholesaler sued a retailer in a federal court in State A. The retailer timely filed and served a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied this motion.
Thereafter, the retailer filed and served his answer. Ten days after serving his answer, the retailer filed an amended answer, raising, for the first time, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, which was available when the motion mentioned above was filed.
Should the court consider the personal jurisdiction objection?
a) No, because that defense has been waived.
b) No, because objections to personal jurisdiction may only be made by making a motion to dismiss before filing an answer.
c) Yes, because the retailer may serve an amended answer as of right within 21 days after serving his original answer.
d) Yes, because the amendment relates back to the original answer, thus preserving his right to raise the objection.
a) No, because that defense has been waived.
A doctor who was an aspiring race car driver was speeding down Interstate 49. He bobbed in an out of the lanes, barely missing cares. Coming upon a sharp curve, he "flattened" out the turn, crossing into the inner lane. This technique was taught to him at the Jeff Gordon Driving Experience. Alas, the doctor was still going too fast for the curve and flipped his car, slamming into the unfortunate Griswold Family. This accident totaled their car and postponed their visit to Wally World.
When the Griswold's sue the doctor, what will the standard of care be?
a) The reasonable member of the doctor's profession, exercising that level of skill & knowledge
common to the profession.
b) The reasonable member of a race car driver's profession, exercising that level of skill & knowledge
common to the profession.
c) A lower standard of care because "flattening" the curve was in response to an emergency.
d) A reasonable person standard of care in similar circumstances.
d) A reasonable person standard of care in similar circumstances.
What is the the Rule Against Perpetuities? AND What is it's PURPOSE?
The rule states that any interest in real property must vest within 21 years after the death of the primary recipient of a will or estate plan.
The rule's purpose is to prevent the wishes of a deceased person from restricting the transfer of property for hundreds of years.
Name the six common remedies in Contract Law
compensatory damages, specific performance, injunction, rescission, liquidated damages, and nominal damages
A local convenience store was robbed and the clerk on duty was shot. The next day, the police arrested a suspect and brought her into the police station for questioning. An officer read the suspect her Miranda rights, which she stated she understood. For an hour, a police officer questioned the suspect about her involvement in the robbery. The suspect did not respond to the questions, remaining silent. Learning that the clerk had died, the officer informed the suspect of the clerk's death, and told her that she should start talking if she wanted to get the best possible plea deal. She confessed to the robbery and shooting. At trial, the suspect sought to suppress her confession.Is the confession likely to be suppressed for violation of Miranda rights?
a) No, because the suspect waived her Miranda rights by making the statement.
(b) No, because the suspect's statement was not made in response to a question from police.
c) Yes, because the suspect did not receive fresh Miranda warnings before she was told of the clerk's death.
d) Yes, because the suspect invoked her Miranda rights by remaining silent in the face of police questioning for over an hour
a) No, because the suspect waived her Miranda rights by making the statement.
The Erie doctrine only applies when a federal court is sitting in diversity, which means the case involves more than $75,000 and citizens of different states. In these cases, the federal court must apply state substantive law, but federal procedural law.
In Strict Product Liability, what MUST a Plaintiff prove?
The product was defective
The defect was present when the product left the defendant's control
The defect caused the plaintiff's injury
A woman conveyed Blackacre, a tract of land, to Store and its successors and assigns so long as Blackacre was used to sell groceries. The deed further provided that if Store ceased using Blackacre to sell groceries within twenty years of the conveyance, Blackacre should pass to the woman's "Cousin and his heirs."
Fifteen years after this conveyance was made, Store ceased using the premises to sell groceries.
At that time, what is the state of the title?
a) Fee simple absolute in Cousin because Store's estate automatically ended when it ceased selling groceries on the premises.
b) Fee simple absolute in Store because woman imposed an invalid restraint on alienation on Store's interest.
c) Fee simple on condition subsequent in Store, right of entry for condition broken in the woman because Cousin's interest was void and woman did not exercise the right of entry.
d) Fee simple on condition subsequent in Store, shifting executory interest in Cousin because Cousin did not exercise the right of entry.
a) Fee simple absolute in Cousin because Store's estate automatically ended when it ceased selling groceries on the premises.