Contracts
On July 1, a cattle breeder named Ryan, who was planning to retire soon, sent a note to his neighbor, Christopher, offering to sell his prize bull for $15,000. On July 10, Christopher, who was also a cattle breeder, wrote the following note to Ryan:
I have decided to take the bull. I will give you a cashier's check on delivery on Saturday, July 28.
Ryan did not respond. Ryan did not want to deliver the bull on July 28 and did not think that the delivery day was agreed to. Instead, he delivered the bull on Monday, July 30. Christopher refused the delivery and stated that he had found another bull he likes better. Ryan sues the neighbor for breach of contract.
Is Ryan likely to prevail?
(A) Yes, because his breach, if any, was minor.
(B) Yes, because the parties had not agreed on July 28 as the delivery date.
(C) No, because there was never a contract.
(D) No, because he did not deliver the bull on July 28.
(D) No, because he did not deliver the bull on July 28.
Dwayne was hospitalized after he accidentally swallowed a coin. He recovered, but his wife, Felicia, began suffering feelings of anxiety, worrying that her husband might be injured again. Felicia went to a movie to relax and ordered some popcorn. While handling her change, the concession stand attendant carelessly dropped a quarter into the popcorn, which Felicia did not notice until she bit the quarter. She did not swallow the quarter, nor did she bite on it hard enough to injure her teeth or gums, but the feel of the coin brought back all her anxieties about her husband’s injury. Felicia sued the movie theater for her emotional distress.
If the jury finds that a reasonable person would not have suffered similar distress under the circumstances, is Felicia likely to prevail?
(A) Yes, because the concession stand attendant was still negligent.
(B) Yes, because she suffered emotional distress.
(C) No, because a reasonable person would not have suffered similar distress under the circumstances.
(D) No, because she suffered no actionable harm.
(D) No, because she suffered no actionable harm.
Furious that her neighbor had rudely and harshly insulted her, Bria grabbed a dense volleyball and threw it full-force at the neighbor's head, intending to harm him. However, the blow to the head killed the neighbor instantly. Bria is charged with common law murder.
Should Bria be convicted?
(A) No, because Bria did not intend to kill the neighbor.
(B) No, because the killing resulted from a sudden response to provocation.
(C) Yes, because Bria intended to inflict serious bodily harm.
(D) Yes, because the use of a thrown volleyball is inherently dangerous.
(C) Yes, because Bria intended to inflict serious bodily harm.
While cross-examining Val, a defendant on trial for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, lead prosecutor, Rose, asks her whether she was convicted of fraud within the previous year.
Is this question proper?
(A) No, because fraud is not probative of a tendency to commit violence.
(B) No, unless the proper foundation was laid.
(C) Yes, because fraud is a form of stealing, and so it will tend to show that Val could commit robbery.
(D) Yes, because it is a crime that tends to show that Val would lie.
(D) Yes, because it tends to show that Val would lie.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: This foundational doctrine allows for lower courts to look to higher courts (like appellate courts and the Supreme Court) for answers regarding the same or similar legal issues in cases.
(A) Bare Animus
(B) Pro Bono
(C) Stare Decisis
(D) Negligence Per Se
(C) Stare Decisis
Val offered to sell Lori a toolbox for $5. Lori immediately responded, "I accept" and went home to get the money. While Lori was gone, Leslie offered Val $10 for the toolbox, and Val sold the toolbox to Leslie. Lori, unable to find a comparable toolbox for the same price, brought an action for breach of contract.
Is Lori likely to prevail?
(A) Yes, because Lori cannot purchase a comparable toolbox for $5.
(B) Yes, because an enforceable contract was formed.
(C) No, because the contract was not in writing and therefore had not been formed.
(D) No, because $5 is below the minimum amount required to file a lawsuit.
(B) Yes, because an enforceable contract was formed.
Marcus owned a self-propelled riding mower had just started the engine to mow his front lawn when the clutch of the mower suddenly engaged, causing it to lurch forward rapidly and throw him off. By the time Marcus caught up with the mower, it had started into the street. Bertha, driving a motorcycle, swerved to avoid the mower and struck a tree on the opposite side of the street. An investigation revealed that the sudden shift of the clutch was caused by a defective gear in the transmission.
If Bertha brings a negligence action for personal injuries and property damage against Marcus, will she prevail?
(A) No, because Marcus was so startled by the mower’s sudden movement that he was unable to react swiftly enough to prevent the harm.
(B) No, because the manufacturer of the mower is liable for the defective gear in the mower.
(C) Yes, because Bertha's damages were caused by Marcus’ operation of a dangerously defective piece of machinery.
(D) Yes, because a landowner owes a duty to passersby to exercise reasonable care in activities on his land.
(A) No, because Marcus was so startled by the mower’s sudden movement that he was unable to react swiftly enough to prevent the harm.
It is Free Balloon Day in the current jurisdiction, during which all people may take balloons from any participating location at no cost. Lucille and Jewel, unaware of the holiday, wear disguises and steal one balloon each.
Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
(A) They are guilty of larceny because they intended to steal property.
(B) They are guilty of attempted larceny because they intended to steal property.
(C) They are not guilty because the balloons were free, so stealing them is impossible.
(D) They are not guilty because the impossibility of the crime is neither factual nor legal.
(B) They are guilty of attempted larceny because they intended to steal property.
Troy slipped on a patch of ice at Lucille's home and is suing her for negligence. Lucille denies that Troy was injured in the fall. Lucille calls her neighbor, Renee, to testify that right after Troy fell, he said that he had a recurring hip injury and was experiencing a flare-up.
Should the court admit the Renee’s testimony?
(A) No, because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
(B) No, because it is irrelevant.
(C) Yes, because it qualifies as a statement against interest.
(D) Yes, because it is a statement of a party-opponent.
(D) Yes, because it is a statement of a party-opponent.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: This type of jurisdiction is the court's legal authority to bind a specific individual or entity to its decisions and judgments.
(A) In personam jurisdiction
(B) In re jurisdiction
(C) In rem jurisdiction
(D) In rogue jurisdicition
(A) In personam jurisdiction
Rogue escaped out of the fence to follow the strong smell of bacon he detected. Frantic to find him, Brooke posted signs throughout the neighborhood offering $2.6 million for his return. Sean later found Rogue eating bacon out of a dumpster, and, using the information on Rogue's collar, returned him. After leaving, Sean saw the reward signs around town and returned to claim the reward. Brooke refused to pay.
If Sean brings a contract action to recover the reward, is he likely to succeed?
(A) Yes, because the reward offer created a unilateral contract.
(B) Yes, because he returned Rogue and should be entitled to the $2.6 million.
(C) No, because the signs did not create an enforceable contractual offer.
(D) No, because Sean did not know about the reward at the time he returned Rogue.
(D) No, because Sean did not know about the reward at the time he returned Rogue.
Some teenage boys on spring break were canoeing on a river when their canoe overturned. A nearby fisherman, Vidal, overheard the teens’ cries for help and immediately dove into the river to rescue them. Vidal hit his head on some hidden rocks and suffered a head injury.
If Vidal sues the teens to recover damages and prevails, what is the likely reason?
(A) The jurisdiction has adopted a “Good Samaritan” statute.
(B) The teens put themselves in danger by not paying attention to the rocks and currents in the river.
(C) The jurisdiction imposes a duty of care toward unforeseeable plaintiffs.
(D) The jurisdiction does not impose a duty of care toward unforeseeable plaintiffs.
(B) The teens put themselves in danger by not paying attention to the rocks and currents in the river.
Jamison legitimately believes he is a wizard with special powers, and he intends to put a magical hex on his sworn enemy, Omari the Toddler. Before doing so, he consults his attorney, Ryan, who advises him that using wizardry to curse someone is a felony. In reality, such conduct is not a crime. However, Jamison, intending to carry out the curse and violate the law, still performs the ritual.
Is Jamison guilty of a crime?
(A) No, because he relied on incorrect legal advice.
(B) No, because his conduct is not criminal in nature.
(C) Yes, because he intended to commit a crime.
(D) Yes, because he relied on his attorney's advice that the conduct was illegal and performed it anyway.
(B) No, because his conduct is not criminal in nature.
In a medical malpractice action, Larry sought to have his neighbor, Shadelia, testify that, the day after receiving treatment on his back from the doctor, Larry told Shadelia that his back was getting worse.
Upon proper objection, how should the court rule on this testimony?
(A) Admit it, because it is a statement of personal history.
(B) Admit it, because it is a statement of a then-existing physical condition.
(C) Exclude it, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
(D) Exclude it, because it was not made for the purpose of medical treatment.
(B) Admit it, because it is a statement of a then-existing physical condition.
TORTS: Bria is walking down the sidewalk. While passing a bakery, a sack of flour tumbles out of the second-story window and hits her on the head, injuring her. Bria sues the bakery for negligence. However, it is unclear which bakery employee is specifically liable for her injury. Because it is clear this accident could not have happened without someone's negligence at the bakery, this legal theory to establish negligent causation is:
(A) Prima facie negligence
(B) Res Ipsa Loquitur
(C) Negligence per se
(D) Intentional negligence
(B) Re Ipsa Loquitur
Ryan has decided to get married! Ryan is just a month shy of his 18th birthday, and his fiance, Girl, is 19. They went to a custom jeweler to purchase wedding rings. Ryan and Girl then signed a purchase order for two rings, a woman’s band for $500 and a man’s for $650. After Ryan's 18th birthday, the rings were ready. Ryan went to the jeweler and told him that they aren't broken up, but they would not be needing the rings because the two had called off their engagement (because getting married at 18 is crazy). When the jeweler protested that they were custom-made and would probably not sell to anyone else, Ryan said, “All right, I’ve got $400 in my savings account. I’ll take my ring, but you’ll have talk to Girl about the other one.” The jeweler had Ryan sign another purchase order for the man’s band at $400 with payment to be made by the end of the month. When the jeweler did not hear from Ryan after another month, he brought an action for breach of contract against him. Evidence produced at trial established that the market value of the rings was $500 and $650 for the woman’s and man’s rings, respectively, and that the age of majority in the jurisdiction was 18.
Is the jeweler entitled to recover against Ryan?
(A) Yes, in the amount of $1,150.
(B) Yes, in the amount of $500.
(C) Yes, in the amount of $400.
(D) No.
(C) Yes, in the amount of $400.
Ethyn owns a wolf as a household pet. The wolf was well-trained, had been raised in captivity, and never showed any signs of aggression. One day, Ethyn invited a friend into his home. While inside, the friend encountered the wolf, became frightened, fainted, and struck his head on a table and suffered an injury. The wolf did not attack or bite the friend or otherwise harm the friend in any way.
The friend brings a tort action against Ethyn. Is Ethyn liable?
(A) No, because the wold did not physically attack the friend.
(B) No, because Ethyn was unaware of any dangerous propensities of the wolf.
(C) Yes, because owning a wild animal is strict liability.
(D) Yes, because owning a wolf is negligent.
(C) Yes, because owning a wild animal is strict liability.
Larry is suspected of kidnapping Renee. During a legal search authorized by a warrant of Larry's home, Officer Jewel opens a small desk drawer and finds a ziplock bag full of cocaine. Simultaneously, in another room, Officer Will finds Renee in an upstairs closet. Next to Renee, Officer Will also finds a large ziplock bag filled with stolen gems. Officers Jewel and Will seize the gems and the cocaine, and charge Larry with kidnapping, theft, and drug possession.
Based solely on the search warrant to find Renee, are any of the seized items inadmissible in court?
(A) Only the gems are inadmissible, because the search warrant only authorized the police to find Renee and there is no further proof the gems were stolen.
(B) Only the cocaine is inadmissible, because search warrants are limited to the scope of where the item or person can plausibly be found.
(C) Both the gems and cocaine are inadmissible.
(D) Neither the gems nor cocaine are inadmissible, and both can be used as evidence against Larry.
(B) Only the cocaine is inadmissible, because search warrants are limited to the scope of where the item or person can plausibly be found.
Sean has a home right next to Jamison. Jamison has a large oak tree whose branches hover above Sean's property. Sean warns Jamison to hire a company to trim the heavy branches, but Jamison does not listen. After a severe storm, several of the branches from Jamison's oak tree break off and fall on Sean's roof, severely damaging his home. Sean sues Jamison for negligence. However, before trial, Jamison hires a company to trim the branches on the oak tree.
Sean seeks to use the fact that Jamison subsequently trimmed his oak tree as evidence that Jamison is liable for the damages to Sean's home. Is this permissible?
(A) Yes, because subsequent remedial measures are always allowed to prove that someone is liable for damages in a negligence case.
(B) Yes, because Jamison hired a third-party company to remove the branches.
(C) No, because Jamison did not remove or trim the branches himself.
(D) No, because subsequent remedial measures are not admissible as evidence in negligence cases as a matter of public policy.
(D) No, because subsequent remedial measures are not admissible as evidence in negligence cases as a matter of public policy.
CONTRACTS: Will promises Val that they will enter into a contract. Val, relying on Will's promise, spends $750,000 on materials in preparation for the contract's fulfillment. Will knew that Val would make these expenses after relying on the agreed promise, however, Will, noting that no full contract has been formed yet, goes back on the promise. Val can still recover damages under the legal doctrine of...
(A) Promissory Estoppel
(B) Illusory Promise
(C) In re
(D) Statute of Frauds
(A) Promissory Estoppel
Sean was in the business of making copper tubing. Leslie, a retail seller, telephoned Sean’s sales department and placed an order, which the Sean's company agreed to fulfill. The order was for 10,000 linear feet of copper tubing at a sale price of $2 per foot. The tubing was to be used in the production of a custom order for one of Leslie’s customers. Sean's company installed special equipment for the manufacture of the tubing to Leslie’s specifications and had completed a portion of the order when the Leslie again telephoned Sean's sales department. This time, however, Leslie canceled her order, saying she no longer had need of the tubing because her customer went bankrupt and refused to pay for the order.
If Sean's company sues for breach, will he win?
(A) Yes, because the contract is fully enforceable.
(B) Yes, because the contract is enforceable to the extent of the portion of the order completed.
(C) No, because a contract for the sale of goods over $500 must be in writing.
(D) No, because the parol evidence rule would preclude testimony about the initial telephone call
(A) Yes, because the contract is fully enforceable.
Elijah is considering buying a house with a large pool. However, he knows his little sister, Emori (aged 2), likes to go wherever he goes. Elijah wants to know if he would be responsible for Emori trespassing on his land to get access to the pool unsupervised.
Would Elijah be liable if Emori was injured after trespassing to use his pool?
(A) Yes, because of the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine.
(B) Yes, because Elijah has a duty to watch his pool and protect trespassers from harm.
(C) No, because Emori, as a trespasser, could not reasonably hold Elijah liable for her possible injuries.
(D) No, because her young age would mean that any parents or guardians would be responsible to ensure Emori does not trespass.
(A) Yes, because of the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine.
Dwayne has a mental illness where he gets very intense hallucinations and delusions. One day while driving, he has a delusion that he is The Joker and hallucinates that sidewalk pedestrian, Vidal, is Batman. As a result, Dwayne attempts to strike Vidal with his car. Dwayne is then arrested for attempted murder, but it is clear to police that Dwayne has no idea that his actions were wrong or harmful.
How should a judge rule for Dwayne's attempted murder charge?
(A) Guilty, because even with a mental illness he intended to kill or gravely harm Vidal.
(B) Not guilty, because Vidal was neither killed nor injured so there is no crime.
(C) Guilty, by reason of insanity.
(D) No guilty, by reason of insanity.
(D) Not guilty, by reason of insanity.
Rose and Joe were involved in a fight in which Joe was badly injured. Joe sued for damages. Before trial, Rose offered to settle the case for $1,000 and stated, "I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't have hit you." Joe rejected the offer and the case moves to trial. At trial, Rose denies any fault, but Joe seeks to admit the Rose's prior statement.
Is Rose's statement admissible at trial?
(A) No, because statements made during settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) No, because the statement is hearsay that does not fall under any exemptions or exceptions.
(C) Yes, because Rose admitted fault.
(C) Yes, because the statement has more probative value than prejudicial bias.
(A) No, because statements made during settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability.
CONTRACTS/PROPERTY: Troy buys a home from Christopher. Although Christopher is not legally obligated to do so, he includes a note in the homeowners contract that he is selling the home because he believes it to be haunted by the legendary poltergeist, Ghost Lori. Troy skims over the deed, but does not pay much attention to the clause Christopher added about the house's more paranormal features. After an incident where Ghost Lori scares Troy, Troy files suit against Christopher and wishes to cancel the housing contract between them.
If a judge rejects Troy's claim and rules in favor of Christopher, the most likely reason is because the doctrine of...
(A) Bona Fide
(B) Inter Alia
(C) Obiter Dicta
(D) Caveat Emptor
(D) Caveat Emptor