1. Gardener had recently received a glowing review in the horticultural section of her town newspaper for a rare heirloom species of tea roses Gardener cultivated. The newspaper article suggested that readers go and view the species. Walker read the article and decided to pass by Gardener’s house and view the tea roses. While walking on the public sidewalk in front of Gardener’s house, Walker ventured close to admire a beautiful tea rose right near the sidewalk. For only an instant, Walker stepped off of the sidewalk and walked lightly onto the small area near the tea rose, in Gardener’s front yard. After viewing the rose, Walker quickly returned to the public sidewalk. Walker’s actions caused no harm to Gardener’s property. When Gardener later learned that Walker had stepped onto the garden area to admire the tea rose, Gardener brought an action against Walker for trespass to land. The court will most likely rule in favor of : A. Walker, because Walker caused no damage to Gardener’s land. B. Gardener, because Walker intended to step on Gardener’s land. C. Walker, because Walker read the newspaper article and could have reasonably believed that Gardener had given consent for Walker’s entry. D. Walker, because the entry was protected by the doctrine of private necessity for Walker to get close to a rare species of tea rose. 2. On February 1, Lumber Store Owner offered to sell 2,500 board feet of 8 x 10 lumber to Hardware Store Owner for $5,000. Lumber Store Owner gave Hardware Store Owner a signed writing which recited the offer and stated that Lumber Store Owner promised not to revoke the offer for a period of 100 days. On February 25, Lumber Store Owner sold the lumber to another buyer for a higher price. Hardware Store Owner wrote Lumber Store Owner on March 5, stating that, “I accept your offer to sell 2,500 board feet of 8 x 10 lumber, and please see attached a check for $5,000 as full payment for this purchase.” Lumber Store Owner wrote back that he could not sell the lumber to Hardware Store Owner because it had been sold on February 25 to another buyer. If Hardware Store Owner sues Lumber Store Owner, which of the following would a court be most likely to find? A. No contract was formed, because Lumber Store Owner was legally entitled on February 25 to sell the lumber for a better price to someone other than Hardware Store Owner because the stated period of irrevocability was too long. B. No contract was formed, because Hardware Store Owner did not pay any consideration to Lumber Store Owner to keep the offer open. C. A contract was formed, because Lumber Store Owner was not entitled to sell the lumber to another person without first checking with Hardware Store Owner to see if Hardware Store Owner intended to accept the offer during the 100-day stated period. D. A contract was formed, because Hardware Store Owner accepted the offer through his letter of March 5. 3. Abigail lived in City and regularly ran a couple of miles through the town. Sebastian lived in a house on the same block in City that Abigail ran past during her regular runs. Sebastian loved to play his electric drums loud in his garage. Sebastian knew that others might be disturbed by the noise, but he wanted to try to join a heavy metal rock band and he believed he needed to practice every day. Every single day, when she returned home, Abigail would soothe her ears with ointment. However, Abigail could still hear the Sebastian’s drumming even while sitting in her own home with all of the doors and windows closed. Abigail refused to change the route of her daily run. If Abigail brings suit against Sebastian for private nuisance, what would be the most likely result? A. Judgment for Abigail because she suffered from not being able to fully enjoy her daily run. B. Judgment for Sebastian, because Abigail could have changed the route of her daily run. C. Judgment for Abigail, because Sebastian knowingly played his drums loud while knowing that others might be disturbed. D. Judgment for Sebastian, unless Sebastian’s drum playing was substantially unreasonable interference with her use and enjoyment of her home. 4. Bob offered to sell a specified quantity of goods to Tom for a price of $750. Tom accepted the offer, and sent a $750 check to Bob. Tom also sent a letter to Bob to confirm the agreement, stating that his acceptance was conditioned upon Bob adding an item to the order that Tom wanted. Bob did not want to add the item, and he (Bob) immediately sent a letter to Tom to this effect, returning Tom’s $750 check uncashed. What fact, if shown to be true, would best support Bob’s contention that a valid contract was not formed? A. That Bob objected immediately and returned Tom’s check after receipt of Tom’s letter. B. That Tom and Bob were both merchants. C. That the new item altered the agreement. D. That the offer was not ironclad. 5. Donna was the manager of a large department store. As manager, she had to go to many area meetings held out-of-state, for which she was provided a company car. Donna had run up significant personal debts, and was looking for ways to pay off her debts. On one of her trips out-ofstate, she sold the company car for cash to Hugh. Before Hugh bought the car, Donna intentionally lied to Hugh about the actual value and ownership of the car, stating that it was worth $5,000 more than it actually was, and stating that she owned the car when her company actually did. Hugh, because he believed Donna when she informed him of the false value of the car, bought the car for the additional amount. Donna used the money given to her by Hugh to pay off her debts. If criminal charges are bought against Donna in a common law jurisdiction, what charges are the most likely? A. Larceny and embezzlement. B. False pretenses and larceny. C. Larceny by trick and embezzlement. D. Embezzlement and false pretenses. 6. Sebastian and Bart were close friends. Bart owned a sports memorabilia shop, and his shop was right next door to his house. One day, a mint condition 1923 baseball card of a famous player was sold to Bart. Bart knew that Sebastian had wanted the card for a long time, but he (Bart) wanted to keep the baseball card for his own personal collection. Sebastian became enraged when he found out that Bart would not sell him the baseball card. Sebastian was so angry that he decided to punish Bart by setting fire to boxes of other, less valuable cards in Bart’s shop. One night, Sebastian entered Bart’s store and set fire to five large boxes of cards. The fire spread, causing considerable damage to the structure of Bart’s store. If Sebastian is charged with common law arson, what is the probable result? A. Sebastian is guilty, because the fire caused considerable damage to the structure of the store. B. Sebastian is not guilty, because he did not intentionally burn the dwelling house of another. C. Sebastian is guilty, because he acted with wanton and willful misconduct in setting the boxes on fire, which would satisfy the malice requirement for arson. D. Sebastian is not guilty, because Sebastian’s anger was caused by Bart’s unreasonable refusal to sell Sebastian the priceless baseball card. 7. Fisher took the day off from work to go fishing. However, as the sun set over a nearby hillside, he suddenly realized that the day of relishing the wonders of nature had worn him out. He decided that he was too tired to drive the two hours to his home in town. He remembered, however, that his friend, Wealthy, owned a beautiful house within a short drive from where he was fishing. When Fisher arrived at Wealthy’s house, there was no answer to the doorbell and even though night had fallen, no lights were on. Wanting only a place to sleep in comfort, Fisher found a closed, but unlocked, window on the first floor, quietly opened it, and stepped through. When he turned on the light, he noticed that above the hardwood mantle of the fireplace hung a priceless painting. He knew that selling such a painting would make him rich, and allow him to fish all he wanted. So, with the intent to take the priceless painting and then sell it, he expertly removed the painting from its hanging place and took it out to his car, whereupon he placed it in his car and proceeded to drive away. The police later arrested Fisher and charged him with common law burglary. What result? A. Not guilty, because he Fisher did not “break” anything in order to enter the house. B. Guilty, but only if Wealthy’s house was his place of permanent residence, and not merely a vacation home. C. Guilty, because Fisher’s taking of the priceless painting constituted a felony committed at night, after a breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another. D. Not guilty, because his sole original intent was to find a comfortable place to sleep. 8. Nancy decided to steal Wilma’s new stereo system. Nancy convinced Zoe to actually commit the theft and they both discussed their criminal plan. The plan was for Zoe to go to a party at Nancy’s, and, as the guests were leaving, take the stereo system. However, things did not go as planned, and Zoe did not take the stereo system because Wilma had it playing while the guests were leaving. The next day, Zoe informed Nancy that Zoe would not be a part of the plan any longer. Nancy then went to Wilma’s house by herself, and took the stereo with the intent to keep if for herself permanently. If Nancy is prosecuted for conspiracy in a common law jurisdiction, the verdict should be which of the following? A. Nancy is not guilty of conspiracy, because Nancy acted by herself in taking Wilma’s stereo system. B. Nancy is not guilty of conspiracy, because the criminal scheme was for Zoe to commit the larceny, not Nancy. C. Nancy is guilty of conspiracy, because she agreed with Zoe to commit a larceny. D. Nancy is guilty of conspiracy, because she committed a larceny after asking someone else to assist her. 9. Dexter hated his neighbor Elmer because Elmer always teased Dexter’s friend, Wally, about Wally’s speech impediment. One day, with the intent to stand up for Wally, who was not present, Dexter tried to trip Elmer by hitting Elmer in the back of Elmer’s knees with an eight foot length of lumber. However, just in time, Elmer jumped out of the way, and Dexter actually hit Morton, Elmer’s friend, in the back of Morton’s knees. Morton fell, and was injured in the fall. If Morton brings suit against Dexter for battery, what is the most likely result? A. Judgment for Dexter, because he intended to hit Elmer with the piece of lumber, not Morton. B. Judgment for Morton, because he was hit in the back of his knees with a piece of lumber swung by Dexter. C. Judgment for Dexter, because he was acting in the defense of his friend Wally. D. Judgment for Morton, because he was Elmer’s friend. 10. Opal was a reader. She had just finished reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck, and got the travel bug. Having no car herself, she asked her friend, Phineas, if she could borrow one of his two cars for a cross-country trip. Phineas agreed to let Opal take his car on a five-day excursion, which they both planned ahead of time. Phineas told Opal to return the car by 6 PM on the fifth day. While she was on her excursion, Opal read Jack Kerouac’s On the Road. The character named Dean Moriarty, and his devil-may-care attitude, really appealed to her. She decided that she would like to take a joy ride, and proceeded to extend her trip from five days to ten days, without talking to Phineas about a revision of travel plans. On the ninth day, while Opal was driving on bumpy country roads, the right axle assembly of the car was damaged. After Opal returned the car to Phineas at the end of the tenth day, he took the car into his mechanic to repair the right axle, at a cost of $1,250. The fair market value of the car at the time Opal drove it was $5,000. If Phineas brings an appropriate action against Opal, what is the most likely result, and why? A. Opal is not liable for trespass to chattels, because she did not intend to cause any damage to the car and always intended to return it to Phinneas. B. Opal is liable for conversion, if the court decides that she exercised dominion and control over the car on days six through ten of her trip. C. Opal is liable for trespass to chattels, because she intended only to be joy riding on days six through ten. D. Opal is liable for trespass to chattels, and must pay for the entire cost of the car. 11. Construction Worker placed a bid on putting a wheelchair access ramp for Recreation Center’s front entrance in compliance with applicable building codes. Construction Worker calculated her design and submitted a $1,500 bid for the wheelchair access ramp. Unknown to Construction Worker, her bid mistakenly included a design specification for a ramp at 40 degrees pitch. Recreation Center looked at Construction Worker’s plans and bid. Recreation Center realized that the pitch needed to be at twenty degrees or lower to comply with building codes, but they were glad to get such a low bid. Construction Worker’s bid of $1,500 was accepted by Recreation Center, and she (Construction Worker) was awarded the contract to build the ramp. Later, Construction Worker realized that her bid included the 40 degree pitch design specification. According to building code guidelines, the slope of the ramp could not exceed twenty degrees. Such a change in slope required not only significantly more materials, but also a major change in the construction plans. The extra materials and change in plans would cost Construction Worker an extra $1,000. Construction Worker told Recreation Center she would refuse to build the ramp unless she was paid the extra $1,000. If Recreation Center declines to pay the extra $1,000, and sues Construction Worker for breach of contract, in most jurisdictions the court will find for which party? A. Construction Worker, because Recreation Center was aware of the actual slope needed for wheelchair access ramps. B. Recreation Center, because Construction Worker accepted the responsibility of submitting her own bid. C. Construction Worker, because there was a mutual mistake. D. Recreation Center, because they were not mistaken about the required slope. 12. Laura and Stu were known drug dealers. One day, Stu asked Laura if Laura would sell him a supply of illegal drugs because Stu’s regular supplier had not been providing Stu with the amount of drugs that Stu wanted. Laura agreed to sell Stu $5,000 worth of illegal drugs, and Laura and Stu both signed a written contract to this effect. Also, Stu gave $250 to Laura in consideration of Laura expediting the delivery of the drugs from her standard delivery period of seven days, to two days. Laura did not give the illegal drugs to Stu after two days. Stu requested that Laura return the $250, but Laura refused to give back to Stu the $250 that Stu had given Laura in consideration. If Stu brings an action against Laura to recover the $250, what is the most probable result? A. Judgment for Laura, if it was impossible for Laura to get the drugs in so short a time period. B. Judgment for Laura, because under the doctrine of illegality when there has been performance under an illegal bargain, the court will leave the parties where it finds them. C. Judgment for Stu, because there was a valid offer, acceptance and consideration for proper common law contract formation and the defense of illegality is not available to a party who is in pari delecto with the defendant. D. Judgment for Stu, if he relied to his detriment on the offer from Laura by promising others that he would sell them illegal drugs that he received from Laura. 13. Thomas shot and killed Burt, and Thomas was initially charged with murder. Under which of the following scenarios is it most probable that Thomas could reduce his charge to voluntary manslaughter because of the nature of the killing? A. Thomas shot and killed Burt while Thomas was defending himself from a deadly attack that Burt initiated. B. Thomas shot and killed Burt immediately after Burt had offended him strongly. C. Thomas shot and killed Burt as Burt was running away after having just committed an armed robbery of a liquor store. D. Thomas shot and killed Burt because Thomas was defending a friend from a deadly attack by Burt. 14. Louis asked Stevenson for the use of his motorized scooter so that Louis could attend an outside art show without having to deal with all of the automobile traffic. Stevenson agreed the Louis could use the scooter to attend the art show, but that he must return the scooter by 2 PM. Louis returned the scooter by 2 PM. However, the scooter was damaged earlier in the day when Louis had driven the scooter across the street from the art show to grab a meal. As he was eating, another scooter banged into Stevenson’s scooter, causing $10 of damage to the $150 scooter. Stevenson brings an appropriate suit against Louis. Which of the following is the most likely result? A. Louis is liable for trespass to chattel and should pay the full price of $150 for the scooter. B. Louis is liable for conversion and should pay the full price of $150 for the scooter. C. Louis is not liable for trespass to chattel or conversion, because going across the street to grab a meal was only a minor deviation from the consent given by Stevenson. D. Louis is liable for trespass to chattel and should pay damages in the amount of $10, because the scooter was damaged while under his dominion and control. 15. Seller was a respected businessman who decided to sell his personal motorcycle, which had a bad engine of which Seller was well aware. Seller intentionally told Buyer that the motorcycle and its engine were both in great shape, so that Seller could get more money for the motorcycle. The worth of the motorcycle with the bad engine was $2,500. Seller offered the motorcycle to Buyer for $5,000. Because Buyer believed the statements by Seller that the engine was in great shape, Buyer bought the motorcycle for $5,000. Buyer never took the motorcycle for a test drive. Had he known that the motorcycle engine was in bad shape, Buyer never would have bought the motorcycle. If Buyer later brings an action against Seller for misrepresentation, which one of the following facts will be the least important? A. Seller knew that the statements he made to Buyer were false. B. Buyer never took the motorcycle for a test drive. C. Seller could have reasonably sold the motorcycle for $2,500, but not for a higher price. D. Buyer reasonably believed that the Seller’s statements regarding the engine were true. 16. Imma decided to expand her bakery, so she made an offer to Sarah for Sarah to construct the expansion. They subsequently entered into a written contract on July 15. The contract stated that Sarah would start construction by September 1 and finish by November 15. The contract also stated that time was of the essence, because Imma had already contracted out with other suppliers to deliver additional bakery supplies to her bakery by November 15 so that Imma could provide more holiday bakery items. Thus, if the expansion of the bakery was not complete by November 15, Imma would lose a significant amount of money every single day until it was completed. On August 1, Sarah notified Imma that Sarah had taken on too many projects, and that Sarah would not be able to start work on the bakery expansion until September 20, and would not be able to finish until December 15. On August 20, without informing Sarah, Imma hired a new contractor to start and complete the project under the aforementioned contractual dates. On September 1, after readjusting her schedule so that she could start and finish on time, Sarah showed up to work on the expansion of the bakery. However, Imma refused to let Sarah work. If Imma brings a cause of action for breach of contract against Sarah, who will prevail? A. Imma, because Sarah notified Imma that Sarah would not be able to finish the expansion of the bakery on time, and she (Sarah) did not cure within a reasonable amount of time. B. Imma, because she was the party who made the original offer. C. Sarah, because she was ready, willing and able to tender performance on the contractually specified date and Imma wrongfully prevented Sarah’s performance. D. Sarah, because she was not notified that another contractor had been hired by Imma to construct the expansion of the bakery. 17. Home Owner contracted with Builder for Builder to build a vacation home. The home was to cost $125,000 to build. A day before the work was due to begin, Builder won the lottery. She called Home Owner and said that she (Builder) did not need the money from the construction project anymore, and that she would not honor the contract by doing any construction work. Home Owner was able to find someone else to begin and complete the building of the vacation home at a cost of $150,000. If it is shown that Builder breached the contract, what damages could Home Owner expect to receive? A. The cost of completion minus the contract price, or $25,000. B. The difference between the market value of the vacation home as completed and the contract price. C. The market value of the vacation home, plus punitive damages against Builder for refusing to start the job without any legal justification. D. The cost of the original contract, or $125,000. 18. Buyer agreed to buy a 1985 Harley-Davidson motorcycle from Dealer for $12,500, with the express condition that Buyer’s mechanic must first inspect the motorcycle to make sure it was in prime working order. Buyer’s mechanic was out-of-state at the time, and was not due to return for some time. Buyer could have paid to have Buyer’s mechanic return early, but it would cost a considerable amount of money to do so. Buyer really wanted the motorcycle, so Buyer contacted Dealer, and Buyer stated that Buyer would buy the motorcycle without the motorcycle first being inspected by Buyer’s mechanic. Buyer later decided not to buy the motorcycle. Is Buyer under an obligation to buy the motorcycle from Dealer? A. No, because Buyer’s mechanic was not due to return for an extended period of time. B. No, because Buyer would have been caused undue hardship if Buyer had to have Buyer’s mechanic return from out of state early to satisfy the express condition precedent. C. Yes, because it would have been unconscionable for Buyer to agree to buy the motorcycle, and then renege on the agreement. D. Yes, because Buyer waived the express condition regarding inspection of the motorcycle. 19. Hiker decided to go on a wilderness survival adventure trip, organized by Wilderness Adventures. Before the trip, Instructor, who worked for Wilderness Adventures, gave Hiker and the other participants in the adventure trip intensive instruction in wilderness survival. During the actual adventure trip, while Hiker was carefully walking, Hiker nevertheless fell into quicksand and began sinking. Instructor saw Hiker, and Instructor encouraged Hiker to use the special technique Hiker had been taught by Instructor to extricate himself from the quicksand. Instructor then went back to check on the rest of the group. When Instructor returned to Hiker, Instructor found that Hiker had sunk to his death in the quicksand. If Instructor is prosecuted for the criminal homicide of Hiker, the jury should find him: A. Not guilty, because there is no general duty to rescue someone in a perilous situation. B. Guilty, because Instructor had a duty to help rescue Hiker. C. Not guilty, because Instructor was responsible for the group as a whole, not just for Hiker. D. Guilty, because a reasonable person would have stayed to make sure Hiker safely extricated himself from the quicksand. 20. Larry and Moe reached the summit of a mountain on a fairly difficult hike, which they were reliant upon each other to complete. After they surveyed the beautiful panoramic view for a few minutes, Moe, because he had a dinner engagement he did not want to be late for, told Larry that they needed to leave. Larry, however, wanted to experience the exhilaration of the summit view for a longer time, and continued to sit and admire the view. Fearing that he (Moe) would be late for dinner, Moe sternly rebuked Larry, by yelling, “If I were not a religious man, I would strike you across your skull with the metal portion of my backpack!” Larry, fearful of being struck after hearing the words from Moe, immediately stood up, and started descending the mountain with Moe. Later, Larry brought suit against Moe for assault. What result? A. Judgment for Larry, because he was in legitimate and immediate fear of being physically hurt due to the harsh words from Moe. B. Judgment for Moe, if Larry knew that Moe took his (Moe’s) religious views seriously. C. Judgment for Larry, if Moe was carrying a backpack with metal as part of its makeup, because then Moe would have had the apparent ability to carry out the threat of striking Larry in the head with the metal portion of the backpack. D. Judgment for Moe, because he was acting in his own self-defense when he issued the harsh words at Larry. 21. Stephie and Therese liked to target shoot with bows and arrows, and they were excellent markswomen. The arrows they used were razor sharp. One day, for fun, Stephie asked Therese if Therese would stand in front on the bull’s eye target, which was ten feet in diameter. Therese assented, and Stephie then shot arrows that missed Stephie by three to five feet, but still hit the target. They then changed sides, with Therese shooting the arrows, and Stephie standing in front of the bull’s eye target. Neither of them was concerned about hitting the other with an arrow, as they were both very careful and competent markswomen. Before one attempted shot by Stephie, however, Therese turned to the side to tie her shoes, without realizing that Stephie was just releasing an arrow. The arrow struck Therese in the heart, killing her instantly. A court would most likely conclude which of the following? A. That Stephie is guilty of murder, because shooting arrows at another person is inherently very dangerous behavior. B. That Stephie is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, because shooting arrows at someone inherently causes a high level of duress for the party shooting the arrows. C. That Stephie is not guilty of murder, because she did not intend to harm or seriously injure Therese. D. That Stephie is not guilty of voluntary manslaughter, because the fact that Therese bent over to tie her shoes was an unforeseen intervening event. 22. Muriel was the coach of a ski team, and was driving home from a skiing competition with four members of her team. Near nightfall, a winter Noreaster’ blizzard storm hit, reducing visibility to fifty yards, at most. The storm was unexpected, so plows were slow to respond. Muriel realized that they would be unable to continue driving home until the snowfall lessened. Then the heating unit of the car failed, and Muriel and the ski team were in real danger of freezing in the blizzard conditions. Luckily, Muriel spotted a small cabin along the side of the road. She pulled over, and finding it closed and locked, Muriel shattered the window of the front door with a piece of firewood. Then, she fired up the pot-bellied stove and gathered the team members around it to warm up. The next day, Orville, the cabin owner, arrived and found Muriel and the team members sleeping on the warm floor. The weather had cleared, the roads were plowed, and there was a large town within ten miles. Muriel refused to leave, stating that the heating unit in her car was inoperable, and she did not want to risk the safety of the ski team members. If Orville brings a claim of trespass to land against Muriel, what is the probable result? A. Muriel is liable of trespass to land, because she intentionally entered and remained on the property of Orville. B. Muriel is not liable of trespass to land, because she can effectively use the defense of public necessity. C. Muriel is liable of trespass to land, if she was negligent in caring for the heating unit in her car. D. Muriel is not liable of trespass to land, because she was acting in defense of others in trying to protect the members of the ski team. 23. Ice Fisher was out on a Northern mountain lake, ice fishing. As he walked back along the frozen lake, he grew tired and saw a large rock sticking up out of the ice, which he decided to sit on. However, as he was about to sit on the rock, the ice below him gave way, and he had to scramble to make it onto the rock without falling into the frigid water. It turns out that heat from the sun had warmed the rock, which in turn had melted the surrounding ice. Ice Fisher then called the authorities on his cell phone to help him. Hunter then walked by and saw Ice Fisher. Hunter decided to try and help Ice Fisher, and Hunter convinced Ice Fisher to slowly make his way off of the rock at a point where the ice seemed the strongest. Ice Fisher did as Hunter suggested, but the ice gave way, and Ice Fisher plunged into the icy water. Ice Fisher was able to scramble back onto the rock. Hunter, having no other ideas to help, was soon on his way. When the authorities arrived to assist Ice Fisher, they found that he had frozen to death because of the plunge into the icy waters. If Hunter is prosecuted for the criminal homicide of Ice Fisher, the jury should find him: A. Guilty, because he violated the general duty to come to the aid of another person in peril. B. Guilty, because his aborted rescue attempt left Ice Fisher in a worse position than before Hunter acted. C. Not guilty, because he had no legal duty to aid Ice Fisher. D. Not guilty, because he had no intent to harm Ice Fisher. 24. Miller was exhausted from working double shifts at his job during peak season as an accountant. He visited his friend Smith at Smith’s one-bedroom apartment, in order to relax a bit. Smith knew of Miller’s current work schedule, and was concerned that Miller might be jeopardizing his health by working so much. As they watched a ball game and talked, Miller fell asleep. It was early evening, and Smith knew that if Miller woke up soon, he (Miller) would go back to work. However, Smith had a dinner engagement he needed to attend. Therefore, so as not to wake Miller, Smith intentionally left his apartment quietly to attend his dinner engagement. Upon leaving, Smith armed his sophisticated security system throughout his apartment, thereby locking all door and windows and preventing anyone from entering or leaving the apartment without the appropriate code to disarm the system. When Smith returned from the dinner engagement, he disarmed the security system, and opened his door. As he walked through the door, he verbally greeted Miller, who had slept continuously since he had originally fallen asleep earlier in the evening. Smith related to Miller the events of the evening, at which Miller became very upset that he had missed a night’s work and had thus lost wages. If Miller brings an action against Smith for false imprisonment, who will prevail? A. Miller, because Smith intentionally caused Miller to be confined within a bounded area. B. Miller, because he missed work because of Smith’s actions and suffered damages from lost wages. C. Smith, because Miller was not aware of his confinement during the time period he was actually confined. D. Smith, because he only intended to help his friend. 25. Peter and Dexter were friends who commonly went hiking together in Acadia National Park, in Maine. They especially like to do what they called “bouldering,” or jumping from large rock to rock along the trails. On one of their hikes, Peter successfully navigated an especially large expanse between boulders with a heroic leap. Peter went back to the rock he had leapt from, kissed it, and dared Dexter to complete the same feat. Dexter declined, and sat on the ground as an expression of his certitude that he would not risk injury by attempting such a long jump. Peter, though, still excited about his own success, continued to verbally goad Peter for fifteen minutes to attempt the jump. Then, Dexter suddenly jumped to his feet, and with the intent to stop the verbal haranguing by Peter, kicked Peter in his left shin with a steel-toed hiking boot. Dexter kicked Peter with enough force to break Peter’s leg. If Peter brings suit against Dexter for battery, what is the most likely result? A. Dexter is not liable, because he acted in selfdefense to stop what he reasonably believed to be harmful harassment from Peter. B. Dexter is not liable, because he reasonably believed that he could not successfully complete what he reasonably thought was a dangerous jump. C. Dexter is liable, because he should have attempted the jump instead of kicking Peter. D. Dexter is liable, because his use of force against Peter was unreasonable under the circumstances. 26. Franklin and Jefferson were large, vital and active men in their 20’s. They were also friends. However, Franklin’s pranks and practical jokes were wearing thin on Jefferson. One day, when Franklin visited Jefferson at Jefferson’s house, he found Jefferson sleeping on a backyard lounge chair. Quickly, Franklin visited the neighborhood novelty store, and brought some kite string and fake handcuffs. When he returned to Jefferson’s house, Jefferson was still sleeping. Franklin then proceeded to bind Jefferson’s hands to the lounge with the flimsy fake plastic handcuffs, and to tie Jefferson’s feet to the lounge with 4-5 circlings of kite string around his ankles. Franklin then hid in the nearby bushes. When Jefferson awoke, he was surprised and upset to see that his hands and feet were bound. He started crying and wailing, and felt mental anguish. At that moment, Franklin bounded from the bushes laughing hysterically. However, he quickly undid the fake handcuffs, and untied the kite string, thus freeing Jefferson’s hands and feet. Jefferson decided to bring suit against Franklin for false imprisonment. What result is most likely? A. Franklin is liable of false imprisonment, because he intentionally bound Jefferson to a restricted area. B. Franklin is liable of false imprisonment, because he directly caused Jefferson to incur mental anguish. C. Franklin is not liable of false imprisonment, because Franklin immediately unbound Jefferson after Jefferson became aware that he was bound to a restricted area. D. Franklin is not liable of false imprisonment, because Jefferson was not bound without a reasonable means of escape. 27. Hunting Guide agreed to take Greenhorn on a hunting expedition into a remote area of the Alaskan wilderness. Greenhorn orally agreed to pay Hunting Guide $1,000, for which Hunting Guide orally agreed to help Greenhorn successfully navigate the treacherous terrain in Alaska for exactly seven days, from January 14 – 21. They dictated the specifics of their agreement to Country Grocer, who had a typewriter. After Country Grocer typed the agreement, Hunting Guide and Greenhorn both signed the agreement. Country Grocer, not a typist by nature, mis-typed $10 as the price Greenhorn was to pay Hunting Guide, instead of $1,000. If Greenhorn refused to pay more than $10 for the hunting expedition, in an action by Hunting Guide for the additional $990, Hunting Guide should try to establish that: A. There was a misunderstanding between Hunting Guide and Greenhorn concerning the purchase price. B. Country Grocer should pay the additional $990. C. The agreement was only a partial integration. D. There was a mistake in integration by Country Grocer. 28. Home Owner asked Carpenter to build him a deck. Carpenter verbally agreed that she would use redwood lumber to build an 8-foot by 12-foot deck in Home Owner’s backyard. The work was to begin immediately, with Carpenter finishing in three weeks. Carpenter was to be paid $1,000 up front from Home Owner, and $1,500 upon completion of the job. To verify the agreement, Home Owner wrote the above facts on a piece of paper with a pen, which they both signed. When Carpenter finished her work, Home Owner paid the $1,500. However, Home Owner was upset that Carpenter did not include steps from the edge of the deck to the pool. Carpenter declined to put steps on the deck, saying that she had completed the job as they had agreed. If Home Owner brings an action against Carpenter, what is the most important point that Home Owner should bring to the court’s attention? A. That he (Home Owner) would have typed the agreement if he had had a typewriter. B. That the written agreement was only a partial integration. C. That steps on an outside deck are not an expectable item. D. That Home Owner told Carpenter on the tenth day to remember that he (Home Owner) expected that steps be included from the top of the deck to the pool. 29. Cecelia orally promised Bart that if he would look after her cat for a week, she would buy him a special bicycle at Joseph’s Department Store. Bart promised to look after Cecelia’s cat, and they wrote the agreement down and signed it. Bart then told Joseph’s Department Store about the agreement he (Bart) had with Cecelia for a one-of-a-kind bicycle to be bought at Joseph’s Department Store. Joseph’s Department Store then placed the order for the bicycle. A week after the special bicycle arrived at Joseph’s Department Store, Bart notified Joseph’s Department Store that Cecelia never did go out of town, they had rescinded their agreement, and therefore he (Bart) would not be purchasing the bicycle. Joseph’s Department Store could not sell the bicycle to anyone else as Bart was quite tall, and the bicycle was built to his height. If Joseph’s Department Store decides to bring suit against Cecelia, what is Joseph’s Department Store’s best argument? A. As an incidental third party beneficiary, they relied to their detriment on the contract. B. As an intended third party beneficiary, they relied to their detriment on the contract and are entitled to damages. C. As an incidental third party beneficiary, they were entitled to contractual damages after Cecelia and Bart rescinded the contract. D. As an intended third party creditor beneficiary, they were entitled to contractual damages after Cecelia and Bart rescinded the contract. 30. Brenda and Stephanie were friends who lived next door to each other. At a party at Stephanie’s home, Brenda saw that Stephanie was wearing a valuable necklace. Brenda asked Stephanie how much the necklace was worth, and Stephanie said that it was worth over $10,000. Brenda became jealous of Stephanie, and decided to steal the necklace from Stephanie. Brenda hid behind the dining room curtains as all of the guests were ushered out of Stephanie’s home at the end of the party. Then, after Stephanie had gone to bed, Brenda silently grabbed the necklace off of Stephanie’s jewelry stand, and proceeded to leave the house with the necklace in her coat pocket. However, when Brenda opened the front door and walked out, she triggered an alarm. Stephanie woke up, and rushed downstairs. Brenda lied to Stephanie by telling Stephanie that someone else had tried to break into Stephanie’s house, and Brenda had rushed over to help. While Stephanie turned off the alarm, Brenda returned the necklace to Stephanie’s jewelry stand. Overcome with guilt, Brenda then confessed that she had taken the necklace. Stephanie forgave Brenda, and then gave her the necklace saying, “No piece of jewelry is worth more than our friendship. I want you to have this.” Although Stephanie refused to press charges, the police answered the alarm and overheard the conversation. They arrested Brenda. What crime(s) would Brenda be guilty of in a common law jurisdiction? A. Burglary and larceny. B. Attempted larceny. C. Larceny, but not burglary. D. No crimes. 31. Neighbor knew when the Munson family would be out of town on vacation. After they left on vacation, he broke open the front door, and entered their domicile at night. His intent was to watch a movie on the Munsons’ big-screen television set, and he did just that. After watching the movie, Neighbor saw that the Munsons had a wine rack in their dining room with expensive wines in it. At that moment, he decided to take a bottle of expensive wine, and he snatched a pricless bottle of expensive wine from the Munson’s wine rack, and returned home with it. In a common law jurisdiction, would Neighbor be guilty of burglary? A. Yes, because he broke and entered the dwelling house of another at night, and stole the bottle of wine. B. No, because the Munson family was not home at the time, they were on vacation. C. Yes, because he carried away the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. D. No, because he only wanted to watch a movie on the big-screen television set when he entered the Munsons’ house. 32. Stacey saw Jonathan walking down the street with a gold necklace. Stacey walked up to Jonathan with the intent of taking his necklace, and keeping it for herself. Stacey held a pen to Jonathan’s back, but she then lied and told him that she was holding a sharp knife to his back. Stacey said that she wanted Jonathan’s necklace. Convinced that Stacey was telling the truth about the knife, Jonathan gave her the gold necklace. Stacey then ran off with the necklace. In a common law jurisdiction, Stacey would be: A. Guilty of robbery, because she threatened Jonathan with force. B. Guilty of larceny, because she had the intent to permanently deprive Jonathan of his property but had no ability to commit the threatened force. C. Guilty of false pretenses, because she lied when she said she had a knife. D. Guilty of embezzlement, because she converted Jonathan’s property to her own use by wearing it. 33. Tenant rented several acres of land on the same property as her rented house. On part of the land, far from the house, she had a large trampoline that she used for her own personal amusement. She never intentionally let anyone else use the trampoline and so decided not to surround it with a fence, although it would not have been difficult or expensive to do so. Sometimes, she yelled at children who occasionally walked through her yard towards the trampoline, thus scaring them away. One day, Johnny, a boy of five years of age, ventured onto the trampoline of Tenant, without Tenant’s consent. Tenant was not home at the time and did not know Johnny. Johnny fell off of the trampoline, suffering personal injuries as a result. If a proper action is filed, what is the probable result? A. Judgment for Tenant, because she did not own the land. B. Judgment for Johnny, if Tenant failed to exercise a duty of reasonable care owed to child trespassers. C. Judgment for Tenant, because she occasionally chased children off of the property. D. Judgment for Johnny, because the trampoline was an attractive nuisance. 34. Butler needed money to supplement his regular paychecks. He was normally hard working and conscientious, however, he decided that he could make some easy money by selling illegal drugs. He approached his friend Yeats, and asked, “Yeats, would you like to participate in a drug deal by buying some illegal drugs from me?” Yeats shook Butler’s hand, and said that he would definitely like to buy some drugs from Butler. However, when Butler went to retrieve the drugs from his car, Yeats felt a pang of conscience. He called the police, informed them of the criminal agreement he had forged with Butler, and told the police where to find Butler. Yeats, not wanting to let on that he had called the police, bought the drugs from Butler shortly before the police arrived. Yeats was arrested and put on trial for common law conspiracy. With proper jury instructions, what is the most probable result? A. Not guilty, because although Yeats agreed with Butler to buy illegal drugs, he informed the police that he did not want to participate in the crime. B. Not guilty, because Yeats only purchased the drugs in order to implicate Butler. C. Guilty, because a conspiracy is established at the moment that two or more people agree to commit a criminal act. D. Guilty, because even though he verbally renounced his participation and called the police, he still took an act in furtherance of the conspiracy by buying the drugs and thus did not effectively thwart the crime. 35. One evening Doolittle, intending to steal priceless gems from his neighbor Murphy, picked the lock to Murphy’s residence, at night when Murphy was out at dinner. Doolittle then walked into the living room whereupon, when he looked outside, he spotted a sports car that he coveted. He immediately left the house without taking any of Murphy possessions, and proceeded to hot-wire Murphy’s sports car, which he intended to take. Doolittle did, in fact, take the car home and park it in his driveway. The next day, Doolittle decided that he wanted cash instead of a car, and he sold the car to a friend, Presby, for $2,000 cash, after telling Presby that the car belonged to him (Doolittle), but he did not want to make car payments on it. If Doolittle is later charged with criminal activity in a common law jurisdiction, what are the proper charges? A. Larceny and embezzlement, but not false pretenses and burglary. B. Larceny, burglary and false pretenses, but not embezzlement. C. Larceny and false pretenses, but not burglary and embezzlement. D. Larceny, burglary, false pretenses and embezzlement. 36. Art Museum contracted with Painter to exhibit a new work of Painter’s. Both parties signed a written contract which stipulated that Painter would paint a new and original piece of work, for which Art Museum would pay Painter $7,500. The contract also stated that Painter was to deliver the painting to Art Museum on or before January 15, for an art show to begin on January 20, and the contract also stated that time was of the essence within the contract. Painter, through no fault of her own, was unable to acquire the special art materials that she needed to complete the painting by January 15. However, Painter mailed a letter to Art Museum on January 12 which stated that Painter would deliver the painting on January 18 and guaranteed the painting would be complete and properly positioned for exhibition prior to the art show. Art Museum did not respond to the letter. On January 18, Painter delivered the painting to Art Museum. Art Museum asserted the January 15 delivery date and refused to accept the painting. Art Museum refused to pay Painter the $7,500. If Painter brings a breach of contract action against Art Museum, what is the most probable result? A. Judgment for Art Museum, because the contract stipulated that time was of the essence. B. Judgment for Art Museum, because as a museum they had a right to reject any art that they did not want to exhibit in the museum. C. Judgment for Painter, because Painter used all due diligence to finish the painting on time, notified Museum, and was entitled to a reasonable time to cure. D. Judgment for Painter, because Art Museum was caused no undue hardship, because the finished painting arrived two full days before the opening of the art show. 37. One day while out for a walk, Rita saw Swimmer out in a lake thrashing about and shouting for help. Rita pretended that she did not hear Swimmer, even though Rita was an excellent swimmer, and could easily have swum out to help Swimmer. Luckily, a passing boat was able to rescue Swimmer, but only after Swimmer had ingested a significant amount of water into his lungs, causing personal injuries. Rita could easily have reached Swimmer, and brought him to shore, before Swimmer ingested any water. What duty of care did Rita owe Swimmer? A. A duty of reasonable care. B. No duty. C. No duty, but only because the passing boat was nearby. D. A duty to try extraordinary measures to help save Swimmer. 38. Bessie was a milking cow that Farmer often took to fairs and other community events, where he would let youngsters learn the art of milking a cow for themselves. Farmer had been taking Bessie to such events for over five years, and Bessie was always calm and complacent when the children would milk her. However, at the county fair, mischievous minded Sydney, a twenty-five year old, decided to unseat one of the children, when Farmer had stepped outside of the milking shed for a minute. Sydney repeatedly poked Bessie on her rear quarters with a sharp penknife. Before Farmer returned, Bessie, upset from the painful poking, struck Sydney with a kick of her left rear hoof. Sydney was sent scurrying backward by the force of the kick from a 500-pound animal, and landed hard against the nearby wall, suffering injuries. If Sydney brings suit against Farmer in strict liability, what is the probable result? A. Judgment for Farmer, because Bessie had not kicked or otherwise hurt anyone else before. B. Judgment for Sydney, because Farmer was negligent in leaving the milking area. C. Judgment for Farmer, because Sydney was an adult and the milking activity was meant only for children. D. Judgment for Sydney, because the strength of a 500-pound animal indicates that such an animal has inherent dangerous propensities that could lead to an injury such as this. 39. Buyer decided to buy a standard model speedboat from Dealer. The cost of the speedboat was $25,000, and Buyer put down $1,000 in consideration of Dealer selling Buyer the speedboat without the normal two weeks needed for delivery. However, later that day and after Buyer had given $1,000 to Dealer, Buyer told Dealer that he could not afford to buy the speedboat and asked for the return of the $1,000 down payment. Dealer subsequently sold the speedboat to another buyer for $25,000 and has refused to return the $1,000 to Buyer. If Dealer sues Buyer for contract damages, what is the most probable type of remedy that will be awarded by the court? A. No damages and Dealer must return Buyer’s $1,000. B. Incidental damages for any additional cost of making the second sale to the other buyer. C. The standard measure of contract damages, which is the difference between the contract price and the market price. D. Lost profits. 40. Finagle knew quite a bit about antiques, but he had no merchandise. His plan was to steal merchandise that he could sell at an upcoming area antique show. To get his first merchandise, he went to Smith’s antique shop. While Smith was in the storeroom, Finagle walked out of the store with an armload of merchandise. He kept this merchandise until the antique show. At the antique show, Finagle knowingly lied when he told Jones that a $5 silver picture frame was really a $500 item. Jones was convinced by Finagle, and based on Finagle’s false statements, Jones gave Finagle $500 in exchange for the picture frame. Later, Finagle was arrested and charged with burglary, larceny, embezzlement and false pretenses. At court, his charges were correctly reduced. The jurisdiction follows the common law. What are the correct charges? A. Burglary and larceny. B. Larceny and false pretenses. C. False pretenses and embezzlement. D. Burglary, larceny and false pretenses.