Contracts
When determining whether there is a valid contract, courts often look to behavior, words, and self-reported thoughts of individuals. A is selling B a textbook. Which of the following are subjective?
A says to B: “I will sell you this textbook for $150.”
B thinking: “that book is worth $400! $150 is a great deal!”
B says: “$150 is a little pricey, how about $100?”
A thinks: “I spilled coffee all over this book, I’ll be happy to get $100 for it.”
A says: “I accept your counter-offer. The book is yours for $100.”
All of the above
I, III, and V
Only II and IV
II and III
None of the above
Only II and IV
True/False: In deciding cases about free speech in schools, courts generally do not consider unpopular or politically volatile opinions to be "substantially disruptive."
True (Tinker).
Is circumstantial evidence alone legally sufficient to prove guilt at a criminal trial?
Yes.Rule:
–In the absence of direct evidence, the jury must make reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence to determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty.
–A jury should not rely solely on these inferences to convict a defendant unless the circumstances are incompatible with any reasonable theory of innocence.
Suppose you represent an old woman who slipped and fell at the grocery store. The puddle that the woman slipped in was a result of a store employee mopping the aisle just ten minutes before the incident. There is a case in your jurisdiction where an able-bodied man tripped over a handbasket in an aisle in the store that was left there by another customer. The Judge dismissed that case on summary judgment, holding that the store did not owe a duty to the man to keep the aisle clear of handbaskets. Which of the following are true?
I. If you represent the old woman who slipped, you would want to distinguish your case from the handbasket case.
II. If you represent the old woman, you would want to analogize your case to the handbasket case.
III. If you represent the grocery store, you would want to analogize the present case to the handbasket case.
A. I is true.
B. II is true.
C. I and II are true.
D. I and III are true.
E. I, II, and III are all true.
D. I and III are true.
T/F: To win, plaintiff in a torts case must prove all elements of the tort beyond a reasonable doubt.
False. By a preponderance of the evidence.
An elderly patient with alzheimers in a hospital needed insulin immediately to treat her diabetes. The hospital forced the patient to sign a contract relinquishing any right to sue for physical injuries that might develop from the medicine. The insulin’s price was also three times as high as the price available in public drug stores. The insulin was defective causing her death. If the woman’s personal representative sues the hospital and the hospital tries to dismiss the suit, by citing the contract, the likely result is:
The court would likely find the contract to be unconscionable.
The jury would likely find that the contract is unconscionable.
Dismissal because the estate can only prove procedural unconscionability not substantive unconscionability.
Dismissal because the estate can only prove substantive unconscionability not procedural unconscionability.
The court would likely find the contract to be unconscionable.
How does being in a public forum affect your First Amendment rights compared to being in a non-public forum?
In a non-public forum, such as a school, speech is not traditionally open. But if by policy or practice the facilities are intentionally opened for indiscriminate use by the public (or some segment thereof), then it will be treated like a public forum (e.g., streets, parks). In a public K-12 setting, use the Tinker Test.
According to Midgett v. State, which of the following is true?
It is for the jury to determine the degree of murder, even if the evidence does not substantially support the jury’s choice.
The evidence in the case supports only the conclusion that Midgett did not intend to kill his son.
The Midgett court affirmed the defendant’s first-degree murder conviction.
There are no states that permit a first-degree murder conviction without regard to the intent to kill.
2. The evidence in the case supports only the conclusion that Midgett did not intend to kill his son.
In a highly controversial decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently decided that hot dogs are legally considered sandwiches. As a result, the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed a case claiming that hot dogs should not be legally considered sandwiches. Which principle best explains this result?
Analogy
Stare decisis
De novo
Common sense, clearly a hot dog is a sandwich.
Stare decisis
T/F: In a typical lawsuit, the defendant has the burden to prove the elements of the prima facie case.
F. Plaintiff does. Then Defendant has burden to prove the elements of an affirmative defense that will negate tort liability.
Consideration in a contract means that:
A person has the mental capacity to enter into a contract.
The two parties deal with the contract in a polite manner.
The contract is legal and fully valid.
Something of value is being exchanged by the two parties.
4. Something of value is being exchanged by the two parties.
May a defendant raise subject matter jurisdiction at any time?
Yes.
What would be the LEAST compelling method to interpret a statute from a textualist’s perspective?
The plain meaning of the statute’s language.
Interpreting a term based on how it is used in other parts of code.
Using comments made by the sponsor of the bill during a Senate debate to understand the purpose of the statute.
Using what is expressly listed as being covered in the statute to determine whether something not listed is covered by the statute.
3. Using comments made by the sponsor of the bill during a Senate debate to understand the purpose of the statute.
Jordan is charged with robbery in Minnesota. After a two week trial, she is convicted by a jury in state court. She maintains that she was wrongfully convicted and appeals. Which court will hear her case on appeal?
A. Minnesota Supreme Court
B. Minnesota Court of Appeals
C. United States Supreme Court
D. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
B. Minnesota Court of Appeals
Han and Alina go to a baseball game to take a break from studying. They are enjoying the game until Sam and Megan, taller-than-average individuals, sit down right in front of them - blocking their view. Han and Alina, who have learned about torts in law school, decide (in passive-aggressive Minnesotan fashion) to sue Sam and Megan for negligent view-blocking instead of simply asking them to move or swap seats. What is the likely outcome of Han and Alina’s suit?
Han and Alina will win their suit because they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the legal elements of a tort claim.
Han and Alina will lose their suit because it was unforeseeable that they would sit behind such tall spectators.
Han and Alina will lose their suit because they will likely be unable to articulate what their damages are.
Han and Alina will lose their suit because Sam and Megan have no duty to Han and Alina.
3. Han and Alina will lose their suit because they will likely be unable to articulate what their damages are.
Benjamin is purchasing an airline ticket online. He clicks on a button that indicates he is agreeing to the terms and conditions of a proposed contract, which contains a provision that states his ticket payment is non-refundable. The proposed contract was displayed in a scrollable textbox above the button. At the top of the proposed contract was a prominent statement in boldface--PLEASE READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY--followed by 8 paragraphs detailing the agreement in readable 12-point font. A month later, Benjamin has a family emergency that interferes with his travel plans, and he wants to get a refund on his airplane ticket. Can he do so?
Yes, because the airline didn’t make a printer-friendly, full-screen version readily available, so the contract is unenforceable.
Yes, because 8 paragraphs renders scrolling down to view all the terms of the agreement inconvenient or impossible, making the contract unenforceable.
No, because Benjamin had a chance to negotiate the contract terms with the airline before agreeing, and he did not do so.
No, because the clickwrap agreement provided reasonable notice of and mutual assent to the agreement.
No, because the clickwrap agreement provided reasonable notice of and mutual assent to the agreement.
T/F: If the federal question only comes up if raised by the defendant, then there is not FQ SMJ (i.e., can't be heard in federal court)
True
Which of the following is NOT a commonly accepted canon of statutory interpretation?
A. Words should be read given their plain and ordinary meaning.
B. Every word and clause should be read to give it unique meaning.
C. Statutes are to be construed so that their constitutionality is preserved.
D. General trumps specific.
D. General trumps specific.
Who makes federal laws? Choose one:
a. Congress.
b. The states.
c. The President.
d. The Supreme Court.
In Womack v. Edridge, the court adopts a four-pronged rule for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress absent physical injury. This rule differs from the traditional intentional tort framework in what way?
There need not be a causal connection between the wrongdoer’s conduct and the emotional distress suffered.
Intent can be proven more easily, as either recklessness or intent will suffice.
Knowledge or substantial certainty that harm will result is not sufficient to prove intent for IIED.
There can be a recovery in the absence of actual physical harm.
2. Intent can be proven more easily, as either recklessness or intent will suffice.
Jo, 16, promises her Aunt March that she will refrain from drinking, swearing, and gambling until she turns 21. In return, Aunt March promises that she will take Jo on a trip to Paris for her 21st birthday. They put this agreement in writing. Jo keeps her promise and does not drink, swear, or gamble. However, she never intended to do any of these things in the first place. Aunt March finds out about this and wants to take Amy, Jo’s sister on the trip instead. Is Jo’s contract valid?
No, because Aunt March did not get any benefit from this contract.
No, because Jo did not really suffer a loss.
Yes, because Aunt March’s subjective intent was to persuade Jo not to do these things.
Yes, because Jo still gave up a right she could have exercised if she chose.
4. Yes, because Jo still gave up a right she could have exercised if she chose.
False.
Two fundamental requirements for diversity jurisdiction:
(1) Complete diversity
No one on one side of the “v” can have the same citizenship as anyone on the other side of the “v.”
(2) Amount-in-controversy above $75,000
Even if the plaintiff ultimately wins less than $75K (or loses and gets nothing), that does not undermine SMJ if the plaintiff had a legitimate basis for pleading over $75K in damages.
The amount in controversy should undermine SMJ only if it appears to a “legal certainty” that it cannot exceed $75K.
Which of the following are false?
A spontaneous, intentional killing constitutes second-degree murder.
The crime of first degree murder requires that the killing be either premeditated or deliberated.
A jury may find that a killing was premeditated and deliberated even if the intent to kill only existed for an instant
A specific period of time must elapse between the formation of intent to kill and the actual killing; this period of time distinguishes between first- and second-degree murder.
II, III, IV
I, II and IV
III and IV
II and III
II, III, IV
T/F: Appeals from federal regulatory agencies go to one of the 12 US Courts of Appeals.
True
Sophia, an employee at a restaurant, was asked by her manager to enter a back office and sit down. Sophia did so, happily chatting with the manager until he closed the door and locked it with a little latch. The manager then told Sophia that he'd noticed Sophia's timesheets were inaccurate and she was essentially committing fraud. He threatened that Sophia would lose her job if she did not confess to lying on her timesheet. What is the manager's best argument against an action for false imprisonment?
Voluntary consent.
False imprisonment is a common law tort, consisting of an unlawful action or show of force that intentionally restrains someone’s personal liberty or freedom of movement. Unlawful restraint may result from words or actions, including physical barriers, overpowering physical force, a present threat of physical force, other duress, or asserted legal authority. There is no false imprisonment where a plaintiff voluntarily consents to the confinement. Moral pressure, threats about the future, or a desire to clear oneself of suspicion of theft is not enough for a claim of false imprisonment, and such assertions are better brought under a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.