What if...
A woman brought a photograph into an art shop to have the photograph framed. The photograph showed the woman's grandfather receiving a military commendation from President Truman. The photograph was the only surviving copy and had not been properly cared for over the years, showing significant signs of aging. Despite the signs of aging, the photograph was still in good enough condition to have some economic value as an historical item. The photograph also had significant sentimental value to the woman. The shop owner placed the photograph on a work surface and began discussing framing options with the woman. While they were discussing the framing options, the shop owner accidentally knocked over his coffee mug near the photograph. Coffee spilled onto the photograph, dampening more than half of the image. Due to the quality and age of the photograph, restoration of the photograph was impossible, and the image was ruined. The woman is contemplating bringing a negligence action against the shop owner.
Did the woman suffer prima facie harm as a result of the shop owner’s actions?
A) No, because emotional harm is not prima facie harm.
B) No, because harm to tangible personal property is not prima facie harm.
C) Yes, because harm to tangible personal property may be prima facie harm.
D) Yes, because the harm was foreseeable.
C) Yes, because harm to tangible personal property may be prima facie harm.
A used car dealer in State A is profiled in an article in a newspaper with national circulation. The article states that the dealer never sells a car without rolling the odometer back at least 25,000 miles. In fact, the dealer is an honest businessperson who never changes odometers, so he sued the newspaper for libel in State A state court. The newspaper’s entire operation is conducted from its offices in State B, but it sells 5,000 copies in State A on an average day. Despite this activity, the newspaper has not registered to do business in State A, which recognizes registration as a basis for general personal jurisdiction. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on its lack of contacts with State A.
What is the likely ruling of the court on this issue?
A) Deny the motion because the newspaper’s contacts with State A were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in State A.
B) Deny the motion because the newspaper should have registered to do business in the state.
C) Grant the motion because selling 5,000 copies of a newspaper per day is not sufficient contacts with the forum.
D) Grant the motion because the newspaper has not registered to do business in State A.
A) Deny the motion because the newspaper’s contacts with State A were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in State A.
"Because then you'll bring up my name in an unhealthy context."
Bobby Ragz
Dermot and Paddy entered into a contract in Los Angeles under which Dermot agreed to remodel Paddy’s cabin in Missoula, Montana. Although the contract was negotiated and signed in Los Angeles, the entire performance of the contract was to take place in Missoula, including the payments by Paddy to Dermot. Unfortunately, Dermot completely botched the job, rendering Paddy’s cabin uninhabitable. Paddy has now sued Dermot in the U.S. district court for the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, claiming breach of contract and seeking $100,000 in damages. Paddy is a citizen of California, his primary residence being in Los Angeles, and Dermot is a citizen of Arizona. Which of the following statements is correct?
A) Venue in the Central District is improper since the claim arose in Montana.
B) Venue in the Central District is improper because substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Montana.
C) Venue is proper in the Central District because substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred there.
D) Venue would not be proper in Arizona since none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in that state.
C) Venue is proper in the Central District because substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred there.
List the parol evidence test from broadest to narrowest
UCC
2RK
CA
NY
A wife told her husband that she was having an affair with another man. The husband made his wife get in the car, drove to the other man’s house, and then sat in the car leaning on the horn. When the other man came outside, the husband ran over the other man with the car, killing him. The wife did not suffer any physical injury during the incident. However, as a result of the incident, the wife developed post-traumatic stress disorder that manifested with physical symptoms and panic attacks, and she began taking medication for these. In addition to filing for divorce, the wife sued the husband for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Is it likely that the wife has a valid claim for IIED against the husband?
A) No, because the wife and the other man were not immediate family members.
B) No, because the wife did not suffer any actual physical injury during the incident.
C) Yes, because the husband and the wife were immediate family members.
D) Yes, because the distress from the incident caused the wife actual bodily harm.
D) Yes, because the distress from the incident caused the wife actual bodily harm.
D created a website titled “P_is_a_murderous_scoundrel.com.” The only item on the website is a photograph of P looking somewhat ominous, with the following caption, “This man murdered his family and buried them in California’s Mojave Desert on January 1, 2009.” The website is not in any fashion interactive. D is a citizen of Arizona and aside from the website has no other contacts with California. P, as D well knows, is a popular radio show host who lives in and broadcasts from his home in California. P sued D for defamation, based solely on the content of D’s website, in a California state court. D has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Which of the following statements is correct?
A) The court must grant D’s motion since the website is Zippo passive.
B) The fact that the website is Zippo passive is not determinative of whether the court should grant D’s motion.
C) The effects test would not provide an appropriate measure of jurisdiction in this case.
D) The court must grant D’s motion unless the website is to some degree interactive.
B) The fact that the website is Zippo passive is not determinative of whether the court should grant D’s motion.
"All my doctor friends have tried cocaine."
MONEY HONEY
P, a citizen of Oregon, sued D, a large Colorado corporation doing business only in Colorado. The action asserted that D failed to provide training, support, and service for a computer system that D had sold to P. P sued D in the U.S. district court in Oregon. Assume the amount in controversy is satisfied. Although the contract was accepted and signed in Colorado, there was a provision that stipulated that in the event of litigation, D would be amenable to suit in Oregon. D has moved for transfer of the action to the U.S. district court in Colorado, claiming that its training, support, and service personnel, who would be witnesses, are domiciled in Colorado. The Colorado damage remedies are more favorable to D than the corresponding rules in Oregon. Which of the following statements is correct?
A) If a transfer is made, it will be pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).
B) If D’s motion is granted, the district court in Colorado will apply law of Oregon regarding damages.
C) The forum selection clause is unconstitutional unless D had “minimum contacts” with Oregon.
D) None of the above.
B) If D’s motion is granted, the district court in Colorado will apply law of Oregon regarding damages.
The owner of an old car parked it in front of his house with a “for sale” sign in the windshield. In response to an inquiry from his neighbor, the car owner said that he would take $400 for the car. The neighbor responded, “You’ve got a deal.” Because it was a Sunday, and the banks were closed, the neighbor told the car owner that he would come to his house with the $400 the next day at about 6 p.m. The car owner said that was fine. At 9:15 the next morning, the car owner called his neighbor and told him that when they had talked the previous day, he forgot that he had just put two new tires on that car and that he would need an extra $50 to cover their cost. The neighbor agreed to bring $450 in cash to the car owner’s house at about six o’clock.
Is the neighbor legally bound to pay the car owner the additional $50?
A) Yes, because the original contract was not in writing.
B) Yes, because the contract, as modified, does not need to be in writing.
C) No, because no additional consideration was given for the oral modification.
D) No, because neither the neighbor nor the car owner is a merchant.
B) Yes, because the contract, as modified, does not need to be in writing.
A man went to an electronics store to steal a computer tablet. As the man was walking through the store aisles waiting for an opportunity to take the tablet, he caught his foot on a large hole in the carpet and tripped. The man then fell into a display case and cut his head badly. The man sued the store, claiming that the store, as the landowner, had violated its duty of care to the man, as an occupant of the land. In the lawsuit, the man and the store disagreed about the man's occupant status. The man argued that he had been a business invitee, and the store owed him a duty to either fix the carpet hole or at least warn him about it. The store argued that the man had been a trespasser, and that the store owed the man little or no duty to protect him from a readily visible hazard like a large hole in the carpet. The court ruled that the store's argument was correct and that the man had been a trespasser.
Which of the following findings would most likely explain the court's ruling?
A) The court found that store had not specifically invited the man to enter the store for any business purpose.
B) The court found that the man had not entered the store to shop for anything in the store.
C) The court found that the man had been invited into the store aisles, but that the area inside the glass display case was outside the scope of the invited geographic area.
D) The court found that the man had never actually made a purchase at the store.
B) The court found that the man had not entered the store to shop for anything in the store.
A town planned to build a new street through a parcel of vacant land on the edge of town. The land records show a deed dated October 5, 1947, to the current property owner, for whom an address is given in the capital city of the state. The town instituted an in rem condemnation action in state court, with notice to all interested parties published in the town newspaper. The property owner, who still resides at the address in the capital city, does not see the notice. The court allows the condemnation to proceed as requested by the town.
Is the condemnation valid as to the property owner?
A) Yes, because a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
B) Yes, because notice by publication was sufficient.
C) No, because the property owner was required to be served by summons.
D) No, because the property owner should have been mailed notice of the proceeding.
D) No, because the property owner should have been mailed notice of the proceeding.
"The strange people are nice."
James "Justin Bieber" Hawkins
A resident of the District of State A properly brought a diversity action in federal court against a resident of the District of State B and a resident of the District of State C for a cause of action that arose from events that occurred in the District of State D.
In which judicial districts is venue proper?
A) Only in the District of State B and in the District of State C.
B) Only in the District of State D.
C) Only in the District of State A.
D) In the District of State B, the District of State C, and the District of State D.
B) Only in the District of State D.
Janice purchases health insurance from ConRip Insurance. The insurance policy written by ConRip Insurance excludes from coverage “any disease of organs of the body not common to both sexes.” Janice develops a fibroid tumor, which can occur in any organ, in her uterus. When Janice files a claim, ConRip Insurance denies coverage. In a lawsuit by Janice against ConRip, which of the following is the most likely outcome?
A) Janice will prevail. Although the policy is ambiguous because “not common to both sexes” can modify “disease” or “organs,” this ambiguity is likely to be construed against the drafter.
B) Janice will prevail based on the doctrine of reasonable expectations.
C) ConRip will prevail because they have substantially performed.
D) ConRip will prevail. Although the policy is ambiguous because “not common to both sexes” can modify “disease” or “organs,” the purpose of the contract is to exclude coverage of male and female reproductive organs.
A) Janice will prevail. Although the policy is ambiguous because “not common to both sexes” can modify “disease” or “organs,” this ambiguity is likely to be construed against the drafter.
An employee came to work wearing snow boots because a snowstorm was forecast to begin that afternoon. In the office, the employee changed into four-inch high-heeled shoes. The employee's coworker was unaware of the forecast. The coworker came to work wearing high heels and without any snow boots. Later that day, the snowstorm began as predicted. When the coworker was ready to leave work, she snuck into the employee’s office and stole the employee's boots. The employee worked late that night, and it was only when she was ready to leave that she discovered that her boots were missing. By then, the snow was so deep and the ground was so slippery that it would have been dangerous, if not impossible, to walk to the train station in high heels. Further, due to the snowstorm, there were no taxis or other ride options available. As a result, the employee had to spend the entire night in the office. Days later, the employee caught the coworker returning the boots to the employee's office. The employee sued the coworker for the tort of false imprisonment. The coworker admitted that she had committed the tort of trespass to chattels when she stole the employee's boots. However, the coworker argued that she could not be found liable for the tort of false imprisonment because she had never intended to confine the employee to the office building and had not even known that stealing the boots would cause that confinement.
Is it possible for the employee to prove all the elements of a false-imprisonment claim?
A) Yes, because intent is not a necessary element of a false-imprisonment claim.
B) Yes, because the coworker did intend to steal the employee's boots, which is what led to the employee's false imprisonment.
C) No, because the coworker did not subjectively realize that stealing the boots would cause the employee to be confined to the office building.
D) No, because the coworker did not steal the boots with the specific intent to confine the employee to the office building.
B) Yes, because the coworker did intend to steal the employee's boots, which is what led to the employee's false imprisonment.
P is a citizen of New York who works in New Jersey. D and E are citizens of New Jersey who work in that state. One day, D borrowed E’s car, advising E that he intended to use it to pick up his sister in Trenton (the capital of New Jersey). However, D drove to New York to take his new girlfriend to Coney Island (which is in Brooklyn, New York). Unfortunately, D became involved in a traffic accident with P while driving in New York City. P brought an action against E in the proper U.S. district court in New York for personal injuries and property damages in the amount of $80,000. A New York statute permits an action against the owner of a motor vehicle who has loaned the car to the person who was driving it when the incident occurred. E has filed a timely FRCP 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. How should the district court rule on that motion?
A) The district court should grant the motion since, in the absence of additional facts, it appears that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B) The district court should grant the motion since, in the absence of additional facts, it appears that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
C) The district court should deny the motion under the standards of FRCP 4(k)(2), which permits the exercise of nationwide service of process in such cases.
D) The district court should deny the motion since E caused an effect in New York.
A) The district court should grant the motion since, in the absence of additional facts, it appears that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"I didn't believe her at ALL."
MONEY HONEY
A resident of City A (located in the Northern District of State A) brought a diversity action against a resident of City B (located in the Eastern District of State B). The cause of action arose in City B. The defendant commutes daily from his home in City B to his office in City A and would find it much more convenient to litigate the action there than in City C, where the appropriate court for the Eastern District of State B is located. The plaintiff would also find it more convenient to litigate in City A, but will go to City C if necessary.
May the action be litigated in City A?
A) No, because venue is not proper there.
B) No, if process is served in State A.
C) Yes, because a plaintiff is entitled to choose venue.
D) Yes, if the defendant waives proper venue.
D) Yes, if the defendant waives proper venue.
Pubco is a publisher of travel guides. Filberts is a general bookstore. Filberts orders 5,000 copies of Travel in France at $8.50 per guide. Pubco acknowledged the sale in writing. Later, Pubco learned that Filberts does not intend to sell the guides in its store for $19.00 each (the usual domestic markup), but, instead, to sell them in Paris at $100.00 per guide. Pubco tells Filberts that the price of each guide is raised from $8.50 to $15.00. Filberts knows that it can buy the guides from a competitor at $10.00 per guide, but in its rushto fill the Paris order, it agrees to pay Pubco $15.00. Pubco ships the guides and Filberts accepts them but sends a check calculated at $8.50 per guide. On these facts, if Pubco sues Filberts, it is likely that
A) Filberts will prevail because Pubco secured the modification in price in bad faith.
B) Filberts will prevail because there was no consideration for its agreement to pay the increase in price.
C) Pubco will prevail because both parties are merchants and no consideration for the modification is necessary.
D) Pubco will prevail because a seller is entitled to change the price if the buyer's margin of profit changes.
A) Filberts will prevail because Pubco secured the modification in price in bad faith.
A teenager was jaywalking across a busy street while texting on her phone. The phone slipped from the teenager's hands onto the street. As the teenager bent down to pick up her phone, she was startled by a car horn honking. The teenager stood up abruptly as the car narrowly avoided her. However, the car ran over the teenager's phone, crushing it. The teenager sued the car’s driver for negligence. These events occurred in a contributory-negligence jurisdiction.
Absent any additional evidence, is the teenager likely to be able to successfully raise the last-clear-chance doctrine to sustain a negligence claim against the driver?
A) No, because the teenager was negligent.
B) No, because there is no evidence that the driver was negligent.
C) No, because there is no evidence that the driver was aware, or should have been aware, of the teenager’s predicament.
D) Yes, because drivers always have the duty to avoid hitting pedestrians and their personal property.
B) No, because there is no evidence that the driver was negligent.
Phuong sued Destino in a federal district court. In conjunction with that proceeding, Phuong filed an affidavit of service with the court purporting to establish that Destino had been properly served. Although Destino received actual notice, he did not appear and a default judgment was entered against him. Destino has now filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule 60(b)(4), claiming that the purported service of process on him failed to comply with the federal rules. The parties' respective versions of the events surrounding Phuong’s attempt to serve Destino conflict with one another. Under Phuong’s version, service would be deemed proper, while under Destino’s version, it would not. Both versions are plausible and neither is more credible than the other. The district court will most likely:
A) Deny the motion since doing so would advance the policy preference for litigation on the merits.
B) Grant the motion since doing so would advance the policy preference for litigation on the merits.
C) Neither grant nor deny the motion, but hold a mini-trial to determine the credibility of the witnesses.
D) Deny the motion since Destino received actual notice.
B) Grant the motion since doing so would advance the policy preference for litigation on the merits.
"If you don't pay, you will have no kneecaps tomorrow."
Bobby Ragz
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.
A consumer purchased a new television set from an electronics store. When he got home, he opened the box and found an owner’s manual that contained operation instructions, warnings regarding the danger of electricity, and a warranty that stated:
“The store expressly warrants that this set shall be free of manufacturing defects for 30 days. If a set is defective, the store’s liability shall be limited to the cost of repair or replacement of defective parts. The store “HEREBY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY.””
Five weeks later, after the set was properly installed, the consumer turned on the set, heard a crackling noise, and watched as his television exploded and was destroyed.
Under which of the following theories will the consumer most likely recover?
A) Breach of express warranty.
B) Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
C) Breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
D) Breach of the warranty of reasonable workmanship.
B) Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.