Contracts
What 4 things do you need to form a contract?
Or 3 things depending on how your professor explained it
Offer, Acceptance, Consideration and Mutual Assent
Plaintiff, a citizen of Alabama, sues Defendant, a citizen of Mississippi, and Co-Defendant, a citizen of New York, in a federal court. The amount of the claim is only $76,000. Both Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction How should the Court rule?
Deny both Motions
What is the traditional definition of malice aforethought?
Premeditated and motivated by ill will.
How long must you adversely possess real property in order to acquire title by adverse possession against an individual:
without color of title?
With color of title?
20 years
7 years
A woman told her friend that she was very frustrated because she couldn’t find a painter who would paint her house for less than $1,500. The friend offered to paint the woman’s house for $1,200. The woman responded, “I can only promise to give you $1,000.” The friend replied that she would not do the work for $1,000.
What is the legal status of the friend’s original offer to paint the house for $1,200?
The original offer was terminated by the woman’s counteroffer.
After divorcing Jay-Z, Beyonce is feeling vengeful. She decides to sue Jay-Z for several claims including IIED and Trademark Infringement. Wanting to see how miserable he was after losing everything in the divorce, as soon as her lawyers drafted the complaint and summons Beyonce takes a copy of both and serves them personally on Jay-Z at his mother's house where he was staying. Jay-Z moves to dismiss for improper service of process. Will the motion be granted?
Yes, the motion will be granted because Section (c)(2) of Rule 4 states that, “any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.” Beyonce is a party involved in the suit because she is the one who filed the suit. Therefore, she should have employed the services of someone who is not a minor and is not involved in the action to deliver the action to Jay-Z.
While driving on a highway, a prankster spontaneously discharged a firearm out of the car’s window and into the air, intending to scare nearby motorists. One of the prankster’s rounds entered a nearby car’s passenger compartment, killing an occupant.
Under the Model Penal Code (MPC), could the prankster’s act satisfy the requirements for murder?
Yes, because the prankster acted with reckless indifference to human life.
In 1995, without color of title, A went into adverse possession of Greenacre, a 30 acre tract of land. A built a house on one acre, planted and raised corn on 10 acres, and maintained a vegetable garden on 2 acres. In 2016, to how much of Greenacre did A acquire title?
13 acres
A group of friends attended a party. One man attempted to discard empty beer cans by throwing them into the trash can across the room. The man had terrible aim and missed all of his shots. One of the man’s friends shouted to him, “I’ll give you $20 if you can sink the next one you throw.” The man did not throw any more beer cans the rest of the night. A week later, the friends attended another party at the same location. The man picked up an empty beer can and successfully threw it into the trash can across the room.
A. The offer was never valid, because it was clearly intended as a joke.
B. The offer was never valid, because its terms were not reasonably certain
C. The offer was valid but expired shortly after it was made
D. The offer was valid, never expired, and was accepted by the man.
C. The offer was valid but expired shortly after it was made
Here, the friend made an offer of $20 if the man could sink his next throw. Implicit in the offer was an understanding that the next throw would come soon, not a week later. While it may be debatable whether the offer remained open for only a few seconds, or for several minutes or even hours, it clearly had expired at the conclusion of that particular party.
A plaintiff sued a defendant restaurant in federal district court for negligence, claiming damages of $100,000. The plaintiff sought to recover for injuries she suffered when she slipped and fell at a restaurant. At the time of the fall, the plaintiff was a citizen of State A. The plaintiff moved to State B six months after the fall and was still a citizen of State B when she sued the restaurant. Six months after filing suit, the plaintiff moved to State C. At all times, the defendant restaurant was incorporated in State A and its principal place of business was located in State C.
Does the federal district court have diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s negligence claim?
Yes, because the plaintiff was a citizen of State B and the defendant restaurant was a citizen of States A and C when the lawsuit commenced.
A woman was suffering from end-stage lung cancer and repeatedly begged her husband to help her die. Her husband finally relented and affixed a lethal dose of transdermal pain medication to the woman. The woman fell into a deep sleep and died.
Under the Model Penal Code (MPC), which degree of murder, if any, did the husband commit?
None
The MPC, on the other hand, does not recognize degrees of murder. Therefore, under the MPC, the husband did not commit murder of any degree.
Wanting to hurt his neighbor’s financial interests, a homeowner constructed an unsightly ten-foot-tall fence that was six inches over the border between the two properties. The fence was not visible from the street but was visible by anyone on either the homeowner’s or neighbor’s property.
In a jurisdiction applying an objective test, if the fence remains in place for the statutory period, will the homeowner obtain title by adverse possession of the six-inch strip of land that he improperly included on his side of the fence?
Yes, because by installing the fence, the homeowner reasonably appeared to be treating the six inches of property as his own.
Kareem, a coastal resident, asked Malik if he would be willing to make some repairs to his vacation home which was located several hours away in the mountains. After looking at the house, Malik said he would make the repairs and gave Kareem his price. Kareem promised to pay Malik his quoted price and gave Malik a key to the house. Two weeks later, Kareem, not having heard anything further from Malik, entered into a contract to sell the house in its present condition. The next week, Malik, unaware that Kareem had contracted to sell the house, went to the house and made the repairs. Malik informed Kareem that same week that the repairs had been made. Kareem, however, refused to pay Malik.
What kind of contract, if any, was created
An enforceable bilateral contract was created between the parties.
Malik was the offeror. Kareem’s initial comments was simply an invitation to negotiate.
On the way home from work, as a police officer for the City of Eagleton, Steven Cooper stopped to watch his younger brother, Darren, play basketball in the park. Darren was playing in a game against Larry Singletary, a former classmate of Steven. Steven always despised Larry. The game got very physical, and Darren and Larry got into a fight. Although it appeared that Darren started the fight, Steven used his night stick to subdue Larry, and then Steven handcuffed Larry. Larry filed a lawsuit against the City of Eagleton and Steven Cooper in federal court, alleging a violation of Larry’s civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The statute provides that “[e]very person who, under color of [law] . . . causes . . . any citizen of the United States . . . deprivation of any rights . . . shall be liable to the party injured. . .” Steven and Larry are domiciled in the City of Eagleton. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit contending that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, because Steven was off duty and was not acting “under the color of law.” How should the court rule?
Deny the motion, because even if the court was to conclude that Steven was not acting under the color of law, the federal court does have subject matter jurisdiction.
An intoxicated motorist struck and killed a motorcyclist. The prosecutor charged the motorist with felony murder.
May the prosecution use voluntary manslaughter as the predicate for felony murder?
No, because voluntary manslaughter inherently requires bodily harm.
A defendant may be convicted of common-law felony murder if the defendant killed someone during the commission, or attempted commission, of a felony. However, the doctrine of merger provides that a felony cannot be a predicate for felony-murder liability unless the predicate felony is legally distinct from the act of killing
In 1995, when O was 20 years old and insane, A entered into adverse possession of Greenacre with color of title. O died in 2005, without having regained his sanity. O’s only heir was his son, S, who was 13 years old when O died. When did/will A’s possession ripen into title?
2008
If Biko asserts that he quit his job after Amina settled the $3 million personal injury case because she had assured him on several occasions that he could quit when she got her million-dollar case, which of the following, if true, would be MOST helpful to Biko?
A. Biko believed that Amina was serious when she made the statement.
B. Amina was serious when she made the statement.
C. A reasonable person would believe Amina was serious when she made the statement.
D. Amina was joking when she made the statement.
C. A reasonable person would believe Amina was serious when she made the statement.
A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of contract in federal court, seeking $100,000 in damages. The plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state. The plaintiff, a bicycle manufacturer, alleged that the defendant, who was a famous cyclist, had failed to participate in a number of promotional events for the plaintiff’s bicycles, as required under the parties’ endorsement contract. The defendant filed an answer that asserted a number of defenses, including an affirmative defense asserting the defendant’s free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Does the court have federal-question jurisdiction over the case?
No, because the plaintiff’s claim does not present or necessarily involve an issue of federal law
A pair of arsonists set fire to an automotive repair shop in the middle of the night and fled the scene. Because the fire was in a remote industrial park, it spread unnoticed for more than six hours, destroying two additional buildings and killing a vagrant who was asleep in one of the buildings.
In a proximate-cause jurisdiction, which of the following facts, if true, would most support holding the arsonists liable for felony murder of the vagrant?
The vagrant’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the arsonists’ conduct.
Tammy Tooface died testate in 1970. In her will, she devised a 50 acre tract of land in North Carolina, “to my beloved friend Anna Bodine for life, then to the Harper Valley PTA.” Anna never took possession of the property. In 1972, Ima Goode, without permission and without color of title, took possession of the 50 acres and has been in uninterrupted possession since then. Anna died intestate last month. The Harper Valley PTA has sued to eject Ima from the property. Assuming that Ima has met the common law elements of adverse possession, which of the following statements is most correct?
The PTA will prevail because it owns a fee simple absolute in the property and the statute of limitations has not expired.