Wrong Answers Flashcards
The defendant’s neighbor owned an authentic major league baseball signed by Babe Ruth. The defendant asked if he could show it to some friends who were visiting. The neighbor agreed as long as he kept it in the display case, which the defendant promised to do. In fact, the defendant intended to use the ball in a pickup game. During the game, the ball was hit over the fence and into a yard with a guard dog, which had chewed up several other balls that had previously landed in the yard. The dog did the same to that ball. When the neighbor learned what happened to the ball, he pressed charges against the defendant.
If the defendant is convicted, he will most likely be found guilty of what crime?
The defendant is guilty of larceny by trick because he obtained possession of the baseball by means of a misrepresentation.
A student and a few of his friends were making their way to spring break. Along the way, the old van that they were driving broke down. Not wanting to miss any part of spring break festivities, the student asked the mechanic on duty at the repair shop for a rush job. The mechanic provided the student with a repair estimate, and the student, on the basis of the estimate, authorized the repair and promised to pay when he came back to pick up the van. When the mechanic called the student to tell him that the van was repaired, the student, rather than paying for the repair, told one of his friends that the mechanic had agreed to finance the repair charges and that the only thing left to do was pick up the van in the garage’s parking lot. The student handed the friend a key to the van and told him to go pick the van up so that they could continue their trip to spring break. The friend did so.
The mechanic makes a criminal complaint against the student for larceny of the van. If the case is prosecuted, will the student likely be found guilty?
The student will most likely be found guilty. Larceny is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of “another” with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. It is possible to commit larceny of your own property if another person, such as a bailee, has a superior right to possession of the property at that time. Because the mechanic had a right to possession of the van until he was paid, the student committed larceny when he had his friend take the van without the mechanic’s consent.
An art restorer, after attending art school for a number of years, secured a job restoring the paintings for an art museum. After several years on the job, the artist discovered that he could imitate the artwork of nearly any artist. He decided that he could make some extra money copying the artwork of up-and-coming artists, while staying away from more well-known artists to reduce his chance of getting caught.
An art collector searching for a painting by a new artist saw the restorer at an art fair selling various paintings, one of which appeared to be by the new artist. The restorer was selling the painting for $100. The collector thought that the price was very low and that the painting should probably sell for around $500, but she bought the painting anyway, giving the restorer $100 after the restorer confirmed that the painting was an original from the new artist. After taking it to an art appraiser for insurance purposes, she discovered that the painting was a forgery. However, she also discovered that the painting’s frame was worth about $125.
With which theft offense may the art restorer be charged?
False Pretenses because he conveyed title to the $100 dollars
A weather vane collector placed the following ad in a newspaper: “I will pay $300 for information as to where I can purchase a Connecticut copper weather vane with Victorian Serpentine Motif in good condition.” The ad, which included contact information, was placed on Friday, December 5, and was to run a full week, starting on Sunday the 7th. A friend of the collector’s knew of his quest for the weather vane, but she did not see the newspaper ad. On Sunday morning, she saw at a swap meet the exact type of weather vane the collector sought and called him to tell him about it. The collector hurried down to the swap meet and got his weather vane at a good price.
On Monday, December 8, the friend saw the collector’s ad in an open newspaper. She called the collector and asked him to pay her $300 for the tip. After he declined, saying the offer was revoked when he purchased the weather vane, she sued the collector for her reward.
Will she prevail?
The friend cannot recover because she did not know of the offer. Although the collector’s placement of the ad was an offer, his friend did not accept by giving the requested information, because she did not know about the ad when she gave the collector the lead on the weather vane.
General Rule on Public Offers
The general rule on public offers is this: an offer of reward is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, and if made to the public generally, it may be accepted by anyone to whom it becomes known. One who performs the requested act has done all that is necessary for acceptance, but if he does not intend that his acts constitute an acceptance, no contract results.
A microbrewery and a farming operation entered into a written contract for the sale of barley. The microbrewery agreed to buy from the farm “all the barley that the microbrewery requires” in its manufacture of beer, for a period of five years, at a mutually agreed-upon price. Under the contract, the microbrewery would place its orders on the first of each month and the barley would be delivered within five business days.
For the first two years of the contract, the microbrewery placed its orders on the first of each month for either four or five barrels of barley. At the beginning of the third year of the contract, an article about the microbrewery appeared in a national newspaper, causing its popularity to soar. The following month, the microbrewery placed an order for 20 barrels of barley. The farm could not meet the increased demand and refused to deliver the 20 barrels. The microbrewery sued the farm for breach of contract.
Will the microbrewery be successful in its suit?
The farm will prevail. Under UCC section 2-306(1), quantities subject to requirements contracts may not be unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or, in the absence of any stated estimate, to any normal or otherwise comparable prior requirements
Question
A large producer of bread wrote to a distributor of flour, asking, “How much will you charge to supply my needs for flour for the next year?” The distributor replied in writing that it could supply the producer with all the flour it would need next year at a specified price per pound. The producer wrote back, “Your offer to supply me with flour is hereby accepted, provided that you agree to a 10% discount if payment is made within 10 days from date of billing.”
What should the producer’s reply concerning a 10% discount be characterized as?
A rejection. The producer’s reply is a conditional acceptance, which is a rejection of the offer. This question deals with the “battle of the forms” provision of the UCC. Under section 2-207 of the UCC, an acceptance containing additional or different terms is effective unless the offeree expressly makes his acceptance conditional on assent by the offeror to the additional terms. When an acceptance is made expressly conditional on the acceptance of new terms, it is a rejection of the offer. The conditional acceptance is essentially a new offer, and the original offeror may form a contract by expressly assenting to the new terms.
An owner of a piece of waterfront property contracted in writing with a contractor to rebuild the owner’s dock in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by the owner. The agreed contract price was $50,000, $25,000 of which was payable on May 1 when the job was to commence and the balance due upon completion of the work.
On March 1, the contractor notified the property owner that the contractor would lose money on the job at that price, and would not proceed with the work unless the property owner agreed to increase the price to $80,000. The property owner did not respond to the contractor, instead making a written contract with a third party to repair the dock, commencing May 1, for $60,000, which was the fair market cost of the work to be done. On May 1, both the contractor and the third party showed up at the dock to begin work, the contractor telling the property owner that he had decided to take the loss and would repair the dock for $50,000 as originally agreed. The property owner dismissed the contractor and allowed the third party to begin work on the dock.
In a contract action by the contractor against the property owner, is the contractor likely to prevail?
The property owner will prevail because the contractor breached. When the contractor notified the property owner on March 1 that he would not perform his obligations on a binding contract unless he was given more money, he committed an anticipatory breach. That breach gave the property owner the right both to terminate the contract and to engage a new contractor to complete the work.
A manufacturer and a buyer entered into a written contract for the manufacturer to produce and sell to the buyer 2,000 widgets at a price of $20 per widget. The contract expressly provided that the buyer shall have no liability under the contract unless 2,000 widgets are delivered to the buyer at his place of business no later than July 1. On July 1, 1,800 widgets meeting the buyer’s specifications were tendered by the manufacturer. The remaining 200 widgets were tendered on July 5. The buyer refused to accept any of the widgets.
In an action by the manufacturer against the buyer, which of the following would best support the manufacturer’s case, assuming it can be proven?
Delivery of the 200 widgets on July 1 was delayed by a storm which disrupted the shipper’s activities, and was not the manufacturer’s fault. The storm may have made delivery on time impossible, which may excuse performance under the doctrine of impracticability of performance. This defense can be used not only to excuse performance totally, but also to excuse the delay in full performance. Impracticability discharges the duty to perform to the extent of the impracticability; so if the storm rises to the level of impracticability and prevented the delivery of the 200 widgets, the manufacturer’s duty to perform with respect to those widgets would be discharged. In other words, failure to make perfect tender would be excused to the extent of the short delivery.
A shopkeeper loaned a long-time employee $1,500 from his personal bank account because a family illness was causing the employee unexpected financial difficulties. Because the employee had proved himself to be trustworthy, there was no writing evidencing the loan and no payback date established; it was understood that the employee would repay the loan when he was able to do so. Sometime later, the shopkeeper’s nephew asked him if he could help fund a business that he was starting up. Because most of the shopkeeper’s assets were currently tied up, he asked his employee if he would be in a position to repay the $1,500 loan. The employee promised to repay the loan on the following Monday, so the shopkeeper told the employee to pay the $1,500 directly to his nephew. Immediately thereafter, the shopkeeper informed the nephew to expect $1,500 from the employee on the following Monday. When Monday came, the employee decided he would rather tender the money to the shopkeeper than to someone he did not know, and the shopkeeper accepted the money.
If the nephew never receives any money from the shopkeeper, will he succeed in an action against the employee for the $1,500?
The shopkeeper validly assigned his right to receive the money to his nephew. However, this assignment was revocable, and it was revoked when the shopkeeper accepted the money from the employee. A creditor’s right to receive money due from a debtor is a right that can be assigned, regardless of whether the debt is evidenced by a writing. By telling the employee to pay the money to the nephew, the shopkeeper manifested an intent to transfer his rights completely and immediately to the nephew. Neither a writing nor consideration was required for this assignment to be valid. However, these factors do not affect revocability. This assignment was not given for value. Such a gratuitous assignment is generally revocable. An exception to this rule arises when the assignor is estopped from revoking because he should reasonably foresee that the assignee will change his position in reliance on the assignment and such detrimental reliance occurs. Here, there is no indication that the nephew in fact changed his position detrimentally in reliance on the assignment. Consequently, the general rule of revocability of a gratuitous assignment applies.
A landscaper entered into a written contract with a developer to landscape a 30-house subdivision at a price of $4,000 for each house. The contract provided for payment of the $120,000 only on completion of the landscaping for all the houses. After completing 20 houses, the landscaper demanded payment of $80,000. The developer refused. The landscaper then walked off the job without doing any landscaping on the other 10 houses. The developer refuses to pay the landscaper.
If the landscaper sues the developer, what damages should the court award the landscaper?
The landscaper may recover $80,000 less the developer’s damages resulting from the breach. A contract is divisible if it is possible to apportion the parties’ performances into corresponding pairs. Here the landscaper’s and developer’s performances can be apportioned into corresponding pairs: for each house landscaped by the landscaper, there is a corresponding payment of $4,000 owed by the developer. The contract itself states the price as $4,000 per house, rather than $120,000 for the entire job. If a party performs some of the units of a divisible contract, he is entitled to the agreed-on price for those units even if he fails to perform the other units.
A high-volume pleasure-boat retailer entered into a written contract to sell a customer a power boat for $120,000. The retailer could obtain from the manufacturer, for $90,500, as many of these boats as it could sell. As the contract provided, the customer paid the retailer $40,000 in advance and promised to pay the full balance on delivery of the boat. The contract contained no provision for liquidated damages. Prior to the agreed delivery date, the customer notified the retailer that he would be financially unable to conclude the purchase; the retailer thereafter resold the boat that the customer had ordered to a third person for $120,000 cash.
If the customer sues the retailer for restitution of the $40,000 advance payment, which of the following should the court decide?
The customer should recover $40,000 minus the retailer’s lost profit. The correct measure of damages is the lost profits of the retailer. That amount should be deducted from the deposit and the balance returned.
A citizen of State A filed a breach of contract action against a citizen of State B in a State A state trial court. The State B defendant timely and properly removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of State A. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the action based on insufficient service of process. Following a hearing, the court found that service was proper and denied the motion. The defendant then filed her answer, responding to the merits of the complaint and asserting that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause in a State B state court. The State A Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party waives the right to seek dismissal on that ground if the party files a pre-answer motion to dismiss and does not assert that ground in the motion.
Should the federal court hold that the defendant has waived the right to seek dismissal based on the pendency of the same cause in another court?
The defendant has not waived this defense. Unlike the state rule here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 does not require the defendant to raise the defense that another action is pending between the parties in the first responsive pleading. While the federal court exercising diversity of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction must apply state substantive law (here, State A law), applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supersede state law in federal court as long as the rule comports with the requirements of the Rules Enabling Act (i.e., the rule governs practice and procedure and does not modify or abridge substantive rights)
A car buyer, a resident of State A, wished to purchase a new car. After shopping both online and in person for the best price, the buyer decided to purchase a car from a dealer in State B. The buyer drove to the State B dealership, signed a sales contract, paid for the car, and drove the car back home to State A. Three months later, the buyer was in an accident in State A while driving the new car. The other driver in the accident was a resident of State B who was just passing through State A. The other driver filed a negligence action against the buyer in a court in State B.
Does the buyer have sufficient contacts with State B such that a State B court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the buyer for the negligence action?
To satisfy a debt owed to a creditor, a son executed and delivered to the creditor a warranty deed to a large tract of undeveloped land. The creditor promptly recorded the deed. Shortly thereafter, she built a house on the property and has lived there ever since. The son never actually owned the land. It belonged to his father, but the father had promised to leave the property to the son.
Later, the father died and his will devised the property to the son. Pressed for money, the son then sold the land to an investor by warranty deed, which the investor promptly recorded. Although the investor paid full value for the property, he purchased it strictly for investment and never visited the site. He therefore did not realize that the creditor was living there, and knew nothing of the son’s earlier deed to the creditor.
The jurisdiction in which the land is located has the following statute: “A conveyance of an estate in land (other than a lease for less than one year) shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof unless the conveyance is recorded.”
Which of the following is the most likely outcome of a quiet title action brought by the creditor against the investor?
The creditor prevails, because the investor was not a purchaser for value without notice of the creditor’s interest. Purchaser had inquiry notice.
Must a junior mortgagee be named as a party to a senior mortgagee’s foreclosure action?
Yes, a junior mortgagee must be named as a party to a senior mortgagee’s foreclosure action because it has the right to pay off the senior mortgage to avoid being wiped out by foreclosure. Foreclosure destroys interests ( e.g., liens, mortgages, leases, easements) junior to the mortgage being foreclosed. Thus, if a senior mortgage is in default, a junior mortgagee has the right to pay it off (i.e., redeem it) to avoid being wiped out by its foreclosure.
A landowner in fee simple signed a promissory note for $10,000 to a bank, and secured the note by a mortgage of her land to the bank. The mortgage was duly recorded. The landowner then sold the property to an attorney, who assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage to the bank on the land. The attorney did not make payments on the mortgage note to the bank. The bank, following appropriate statutory procedures, foreclosed the mortgage and gave notice to both the landowner and the attorney that it intended to sue for any deficiency. At the foreclosure sale, the property sold for $6,000. The bank now sues both the landowner and the attorney for $5,000, which is the remaining amount of the unpaid principal and interest on the note plus costs of foreclosure.
Against which party will the bank be successful in obtaining a judgment?
- Both the landowner and the attorney. They are jointly liable.
An owner obtained a loan of $60,000 from a bank in exchange for a promissory note secured by a mortgage on his land, which the bank promptly and properly recorded. A few months later, the owner obtained another loan of $60,000 from a lender, in exchange for a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the land, which the lender promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, the owner sold the land to a buyer for $150,000 and conveyed a warranty deed. The buyer expressly agreed with the owner to assume both mortgages, with the consent of the bank and the lender. A few years later, the bank loaned the buyer an additional $50,000 in exchange for an increase in the interest rate and principal amount of its mortgage on the land. At that time, the balance on the original loan from the bank was $50,000. Shortly thereafter, the buyer stopped making payments on both mortgages and disappeared. After proper notice to all appropriate parties, the bank instituted a foreclosure action on its mortgage, and purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. At that time the principal balance on the lender’s mortgage loan was $50,000. After fees and expenses, the proceeds from the foreclosure sale totaled $80,000.
Assuming that the jurisdiction permits deficiency judgments, which of the following statements is most accurate?
The bank’s original mortgage has priority in the proceeds, followed by the lender’s mortgage, and only the lender can proceed against the owner because the bank modified its mortgage after the owner had transferred to the buyer. If the landowner enters into a modification agreement with the senior mortgagee, raising its interest rate or otherwise making the agreement more burdensome, the junior mortgage will be given priority over the modification. On the other hand, the owner will not be liable to pay off the balance of the bank’s loan, because when a mortgagee and an assuming grantee subsequently modify the original obligation, the original mortgagor is completely discharged of liability. The owner had nothing to do with the modification agreed to by the bank and the buyer that increased the amount of the mortgage debt, and will not be even secondarily liable for that amount.
Question
A father who was paralyzed in an accident and unable to work refused to accept financial support from relatives or the government to help him care for his family. When one of his children became seriously ill and needed medical attention, the father refused to allow the child to receive medical care at the local public health clinic because of his feelings regarding the acceptance of charity. The father thought that the child was starting to get better, but then she took a turn for the worse and died from her illness.
What crime has the father most likely committed?
Involuntary Manslaughter. A father has a duty to provide the necessities for his child. His failure to do so has caused the child’s death. Such an omission is criminal.
A man asked a coworker who was a wine collector to lend him a bottle of expensive wine to put in his liquor cabinet, because he was inviting his mother over for dinner and wanted to impress her. The coworker permitted the man to take a bottle of wine worth $700 to his apartment for the dinner as long as he returned it the next morning. As he had planned all along, the man instead invited his girlfriend over for a romantic dinner, at which they drank the bottle of wine. The next day the man told his coworker that he had been mugged on his way home and that the muggers made off with the wine. Suspicious, the coworker found the empty wine bottle in the man’s trash from his apartment.
If the man is charged with theft in a common-law jurisdiction, of which theft offense is he most likely to be convicted?
Larceny by Trick. The man can be convicted of larceny by trick. The owner of the wine gave possession of the bottle of wine to the man, but clearly did not give up ownership, because possession was transferred on the coworker’s explicit promise to return it the next day. Therefore, a theft crime of some sort was committed, but that crime is not pure common law larceny because there was no trespassory taking. If the man obtained possession of the wine by fraud or misrepresentation, then he is guilty of larceny by trick. Because it apparently was the man’s intent to drink the wine all along, the possession was obtained by fraud and the crime is larceny by trick, not embezzlement (the crime which would have occurred if he obtained rightful possession).
Question
A felon planned to break into the rental storage unit next to his that contained valuable electronic equipment. He went to a hardware store to purchase a crowbar. The proprietor sold him the crowbar even though he told her that he needed it to break into someone’s storage unit. After the purchase, the felon went to the storage facility with his friend. The felon told the friend that he had lost the key to his storage unit and did not have time to contact the facility’s manager, so they needed to break into the unit to get his equipment. Because the felon had a bad back, the friend pried open the door with the crowbar and carried the equipment out to the car. A silent alarm was triggered and the pair were apprehended shortly after leaving the facility.
Can the proprietor and the friend be convicted as accomplices to larceny?
Neither the proprietor nor the friend would be convicted as accomplices to larceny. Mere knowledge that a crime may result from the aid provided is insufficient for accomplice liability so that is why the proprietor is not guilty.
A homeowner decided to destroy his home by fire in order to collect the insurance. A neighbor’s house was located a short distance from the homeowner’s home. The homeowner knew that there was a strong wind blowing towards the neighbor’s home; while he did not want to burn the neighbor’s home, he nevertheless set fire to his own home. The fire department was unable to save the homeowner’s house. They did manage to put out the fire moments before it spread to the neighbor’s home, which suffered damage from smoke and soot. The jurisdiction’s arson statute covers burning one’s own dwelling as well as the dwelling of another, but is otherwise unchanged from the common law.
If the homeowner is charged with attempted arson of the neighbor’s home, is he likely to be found guilty?
No, because he did not intend to burn the neighbor’s house. The homeowner will be found not guilty because he did not have the requisite mental state. To convict a person for an attempted crime, the prosecution must establish that the defendant had an actual specific intent to cause the harm prohibited by the statute and committed an act beyond mere preparation in furtherance of that intent. Those elements-specific intent and act-are required regardless of the mental state required by the target offense.
A drug smuggler had just returned home after smuggling in a large quantity of cocaine in the false bottom of his suitcase. As he was about to leave his house again to deliver the cocaine to his contact in the city, a police officer arrived with a trained drug-sniffing dog and asked him if he could come in and ask him some questions. The smuggler declined but the officer stepped into the doorway, and the dog immediately caught the scent of the cocaine and pulled the officer toward the suitcase in the hallway. Based on the dog’s clear indication that the suitcase contained narcotics, the police officer opened the suitcase and found the cocaine. The smuggler was then arrested and the cocaine and suitcase seized.
At a pretrial hearing, should the judge grant the smuggler’s motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine in the suitcase?
Yes, because the search and seizure required a warrant. Don’t pick the answer that is too broad
A suspect was arrested on a charge of bank robbery. After formal charges had been filed, the suspect was scheduled for a lineup identification procedure. The suspect’s attorney was notified of the lineup and arrived at the station prior to the scheduled lineup. He was directed to wait in the hallway outside the lineup room. When the suspect was escorted into the lineup room, the officer acknowledged the attorney but did not motion for him to follow them into the lineup room. The attorney remained seated in the hallway. Inside the lineup room, the six members of the lineup, including the suspect, stood on one side of the one-way mirror in full view of the witnesses gathered on the other side in the viewing area. The lineup members stepped forward one by one for a closer inspection. After the first two lineup members had been presented, an officer realized that the suspect’s attorney was not present and immediately escorted him to the viewing area. The attorney arrived in time to witness the presentation of the suspect and the remaining three members of the lineup. Two witnesses then identified the suspect as the robber.
At trial, if the defense objects to the introduction of the lineup evidence, should the objection be granted?
Yes, because the right to have counsel present at a post-charge lineup includes the right to have counsel present for the entire lineup. The objection should be granted. A post-charge lineup is a critical stage of the prosecution at which a defendant has the right to counsel. Once the government has initiated adversary judicial criminal proceedings, the presence of counsel is a prerequisite to the conduct of a lineup. This right attaches as soon as the accused is within sight of a potential identification witness.
As part of a deal to raise the federal debt limit, Congress passed a statute by a greater than two-thirds vote in both houses giving the President authority to cancel particular spending provisions that are contained within legislation that he signs into law. The statute provided that Congress could override the President’s decisions only by a three-fourths vote. As soon as the statute went into effect, a Senator who had voted against the statute filed suit in federal district court, challenging its constitutionality.
Is the Senator likely to succeed in her lawsuit?
The Senator will not succeed because she lacks standing to challenge the statute. The Supreme Court has held that members of Congress lack standing to challenge a law authorizing the President to exercise a line item veto (such as the statute here), reasoning that the injury is not concrete and personal, but rather is institutional in that it is shared by all members of Congress.
Congress adopted a law granting a state university $2.5 million to study the properties of snowflakes. An outraged taxpayer filed suit to challenge the appropriation.
Which of the following is the best argument against this challenge?
The best argument is that the taxpayer lacks standing. Generally, taxpayers lack standing to challenge federal appropriations. There is an exception for expenditures violating the Establishment Clause, but that is not the case here.
A woman whose children attended a charter school learned that the children of the woman’s neighbor who attended a parochial school received a hot lunch paid for, in part, through federal expenditures enacted under Congress’s spending power. The charter school received no funding from the federal government and was not allowed to participate in the hot lunch program. The woman challenged this federal expenditure as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
For her to bring the suit, at the very least what must the woman allege?
A She pays federal income taxes and has children who are not eligible for the lunch program because they attend the charter school.She pays federal income taxes and has children who are not eligible for the lunch program because they attend the charter school. - no response given
B She pays federal income taxes and the use of federal funds in this manner is an improper taxing and spending method.She pays federal income taxes and the use of federal funds in this manner is an improper taxing and spending method. - not selected, this is the correct answer
C She pays federal income taxes and has children who are of school age.She pays federal income taxes and has children who are of school age. - no response given
D She pays federal income taxes and has children who are of school age, and the use of federal funds in this manner is an improper taxing and spending method.
The woman must allege that she pays federal income taxes and that the use of federal funds in this manner is improper under Congress’s taxing and spending power. In general, a taxpayer has no standing to challenge the expenditure of federal funds. The major exception to this rule is where the taxpayer alleges that the expenditure was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power and exceeds some specific limitation on that power, in particular the Establishment Clause. Typically, neutral benefit programs that provide aid to private schools do not violate the Establishment Clause if they treat religious schools the same as other eligible private schools. This program, however, may be problematic because it provides a benefit to religious schools that isn’t available to other schools. Thus, the woman would have standing to contest this federal expenditure. The woman does not have to have children to bring this challenge, let alone children in the charter school. However, she would have to be a taxpayer.
In compliance with a federal statute that permits government agencies to sell or give away surplus government property, the Secretary of State directed that one of the State Department’s surplus airplanes be given to a church. The Secretary knew that the church planned to use the plane to fly medical supplies to its missions in Third World countries. These missions provide medical assistance, but they also attempt to evangelize residents of the countries in question, and the Secretary was aware that, in addition to medical supplies, the plane might transport Bibles and religious tracts translated into local languages. Had the Secretary not ordered the plane to be given to the church, it would have been sold at a very reasonable cost to a nonprofit organization that helps teach young people the fundamentals of piloting and maintaining aircraft.
Which of the following parties would be most likely to have standing to sue to prevent the Secretary of State from making the gift to the church?
A member of the nonprofit flying association is most likely to have standing to challenge the gift. To have standing to challenge government action on constitutional grounds, a person must show that he has a concrete stake in the outcome of the litigation. This is to ensure adequate presentation of the issues. To have such a stake, the potential litigant must show that he has an injury in fact caused by the government that is more than the theoretical injury that all persons suffer when the government engages in unconstitutional acts, and that a decision in his favor will eliminate his harm. A member of the flying association can show both components here: If the gift is unconstitutional, the association has suffered more than a theoretical injury-it has lost the opportunity to purchase the airplane from the federal government at a good price, and a decision in the club’s favor will eliminate the injury because it will then be able to purchase the plane. Thus, the member of the nonprofit flying organization has standing.
While driving in a city in State A, a truck driver and a motorcycle rider simultaneously struck a pedestrian. The pedestrian is a citizen of State A, whereas the driver and rider are citizens of State B. The pedestrian properly sued both drivers in a federal district court in State A, seeking $100,000 based on negligence.
If the truck driver wants to file a claim for damages to their truck totaling $7,500 against the motorcycle rider, may they do so?
Responses
A No, because the amount in controversy is too small.No, because the amount in controversy is too small. - no response given
B No, because the truck driver and motorcycle rider are both citizens of State B.No, because the truck driver and motorcycle rider are both citizens of State B. - no response given
C Yes, the truck driver must assert the claim or they will be foreclosed from asserting it later.Yes, the truck driver must assert the claim or they will be foreclosed from asserting it later. - no response given
D Yes, the truck driver may assert the claim against the motorcycle rider, but they are not required to do so.
The truck driver may assert the claim, but they are not required to do so. As a general rule, a party may assert a crossclaim against a co-party only if the crossclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or a counterclaim. Furthermore, such claims are permissive, in that the crossclaim will not be barred at the conclusion of the pending litigation. Here, the truck driver’s claim for damages to their truck would relate to the pedestrian’s negligence claim and is thus a proper crossclaim. There is supplemental jurisdiction over the claim because it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the pedestrian’s claim, and the withdrawal provisions contained in the supplemental jurisdiction do not apply because they apply, if at all, only to claims by a plaintiff.
On December 6, the owner of an electronics store sent a written request to a computer manufacturer asking for the price of a certain laptop computer. The manufacturer sent a written reply with a catalog listing the prices and descriptions of all of his available computers. The letter stated that the terms of sale were cash within 30 days of delivery. On December 14, by return letter, the store owner ordered the computer, enclosing a check for $4,000, the listed price. Immediately on receipt of the order and check, the manufacturer informed the store owner that there had been a pricing mistake in the catalog, which should have quoted the price as $4,300 for that computer. The store owner refused to pay the additional $300, arguing that his order of December 14 in which the $4,000 check was enclosed was a proper acceptance of the manufacturer’s offer.
In a suit for damages, will the manufacturer prevail?
Responses
A Yes, because his first communication stated terms calling for cash within 30 days of delivery.
B Yes, because of the mistake as to price.
C Yes, because his first communication did not constitute an offer.
D No, because the store owner’s December 14 letter was a proper acceptance of the manufacturer’s offer.
The store owner’s December 14 letter was an acceptance. Whether the letter was an acceptance depends on whether the manufacturer’s letter was an offer, because an acceptance is a manifestation of assent to an offer. For a communication to be an offer, it must create a reasonable expectation in the offeree that the offeror is willing to enter into a contract on the basis of the offered terms. There must be a promise, undertaking, or commitment to enter into a contract with certain and definite terms. Courts usually hold that if a statement is made broadly, such as in an advertisement or catalog, it will not constitute an offer because it is not reasonable to expect that the sender intended to make offers to all who received the advertisement; rather, the courts usually find such advertisements to be invitations seeking offers. However, price quotations may be considered as offers if given in response to a specific inquiry. The courts will look to the surrounding circumstances, and here a court would probably determine that the catalog that the manufacturer sent was an offer because it was sent in response to the store owner’s specific inquiries about prices on a specific computer and it included delivery terms and conditions of sale.
A builder contracted to build a house for a newly married couple. Terms of the contract provided that the builder would receive the contract price when the building was fully completed. Just when the builder had completed one-half of the structure, a tornado struck the area and demolished the building.
What is the builder entitled to recover from the couple under the contract?
Responses
A Nothing.
B One-half of the contract price.
C One-half of the fair market value of what remains of the house.
D Cost of materials and reasonable labor costs.
The builder will not be able to recover anything from the couple under the contract because he has not performed his duty. Under the parties’ contract, the builder’s completion of the house was a condition precedent to the couple’s duty to pay. The condition precedent was not discharged by the destruction of the work in progress because construction has not been made impossible, but rather merely more costly—the builder can rebuild. Thus, he is not entitled to any recovery. Note, however, that a number of courts will excuse timely performance because the destruction was not the builder’s fault.
A woman sued her ex-husband for installments due under their divorce property settlement agreement. The ex-husband defended the suit on the ground that the ex-wife was in breach of the agreement. However, the court granted judgment for the ex-wife. Now, the ex-wife is suing her ex-husband for other installments due under the agreement. The ex-husband raises the defense that the agreement was void and illegal because of fraud perpetrated by his ex-wife at the time the agreement was signed. The ex-wife moves to strike her ex-husband’s defense, claiming issue preclusion.
Should the court grant the motion?
Responses
A No, because the issue was never litigated.
B No, because judgment on one installment does not bar subsequent actions on other installments.
C Yes, because the husband should have raised the defense in the first action.
D Yes, because the issue of fraud is never waived.
A department store buyer and a manufacturer of food processors entered into a written contract whereby the manufacturer would sell to the buyer 50 of its top-of-the-line models for $100 each. When the delivery arrived on May 15, several days early, the buyer noticed that the food processors were a different model that did not have all of the features as the top-of-the-line model that was ordered. The buyer contacted the manufacturer and told him that he was rejecting the food processors that were delivered to him and expected the manufacturer to send 50 top-of-the-line models immediately. The manufacturer replied that because of a backlog of orders that had not yet been filled, the top-of-the-line models could not be delivered until August 15. Because the department store had contracted with a restaurant to deliver three top-of-the-line models by May 31, the buyer delivered three of the nonconforming food processors along with a promise to replace them with three top-of-the-line models in mid-August. The buyer returned the remaining food processors to the manufacturer.
How much could the department store recover from the manufacturer for the three food processors that it delivered to the restaurant?
The department store was entitled to recover contract damages from the manufacturer for the three food processors that it accepted. If the buyer accepts goods that breach one of the seller’s warranties, the basic measure of damages is the difference between the value of the goods as delivered and the value they would have had if they had been according to the contract, which is the difference between the processors and the market price.
On February 1, the owner of a bowling alley read in a magazine an ad from a major manufacturer of bowling balls offering sets of 40 balls in various weights and drilled in various sizes for $10 per ball. The owner immediately filled out the order form included in the ad for the 40 balls and deposited it, properly stamped and addressed, into the mail. On February 2, the bowling alley owner received in the mail a letter from the manufacturer, sent out as part of its advertising campaign, stating in relevant part that it will sell the bowling alley owner 40 bowling balls at $10 per ball. A day later, on February 3, the manufacturer received the bowling alley owner’s order. On February 4, the balls were shipped.
On what day did an enforceable contract arise?
The contract arose when the balls were shipped. The general rule is that an offer can be accepted by performance or a promise to perform unless the offer clearly limits the method of acceptance. Here, the offer would be the bowling alley owner’s order, because a magazine ad is usually held to be merely solicitation to accept offers rather than an offer. Thus, the manufacturer accepted and the contract was formed when it shipped the balls.
A young man proposed to his girlfriend, but she was reluctant because of his meager income and lack of job potential. The young man told his father about her reluctance. The father told the girlfriend that if she married his son, he would support them for six months and send his son to a six-month computer technology training school. This was sufficient to dispel her reservations and the two were married very soon after. When they returned from their honeymoon, the father refused to go through with his offer. Although the girlfriend is happy in her marriage, she sued the father for damages.
If the father prevails, what is the likely reason?
Responses
A The father’s promise was not supported by valid consideration.
B The contract is against public policy.
C The contract was oral.
D The girlfriend is happy and therefore has incurred no detriment.
If the father prevails, it will be because his promise to the young woman was not in writing. The Statute of Frauds requires that a contract in consideration of marriage must be evidenced by a writing to be enforceable. This includes any promise that induces someone to marry by offering something of value.
A public high school’s drug policy strictly prohibited the use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds, including any prescription or over-the-counter medication, unless supervised by a nurse. During lunch, the school principal observed a student ingesting two white pills. The student admitted to the principal that the pills were aspirins and had been given to her by a senior. School officials approached the senior and demanded to search her backpack. When no aspirins were found in the backpack, the officials required the senior to submit to a private physical search by the female school nurse. Some aspirins were subsequently found in the waistband of the senior’s gym shorts that she was wearing under her school uniform, and she was suspended. The senior’s mother sued school officials, claiming that the physical search violated her daughter’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In response, the school officials filed a motion for summary judgment against the mother’s claim.
The facts above are stipulated to by the parties. Should the court grant the motion for summary judgment?
The motion should be denied. A school search will be upheld only if it offers a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing, the measures adopted to carry out the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and the search is “not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.”
A man and a woman were arrested and charged with a series of armed robberies. Each suspect was given Miranda warnings, and different interrogation teams questioned each suspect separately. Upon being questioned, the man told the police, “I’m not going to talk until I see a lawyer.” An officer responded, “You might want to reconsider, because your partner has already confessed, and she’s implicated you in the crimes.” The man then told the police that he wanted to talk to the woman privately. The police escorted the man to the woman’s cell, locked him in with her, and left. Unbeknownst to either of them, the police had bugged the woman’s cell and recorded both the man and the woman making self-incriminating statements during their meeting. The man made no further statements to the police on advice of counsel, whom he called immediately after his conversation with the woman. The man was put on trial first, and the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence tapes of the bugged conversation between the man and the woman. The defense made a motion to suppress the evidence.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
Responses
A Yes, because the evidence is the fruit of a wiretap that violated the Fourth Amendment.
B Yes, because the police created a situation likely to induce the defendant to make an incriminating statement.
C No, because there is no expectation of privacy in a jail cell.
D No, because the conversation constituted a waiver of the man’s Miranda rights.
The conversation should be suppressed because the police conduct violated the man’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions a defendant has a right to the assistance of counsel at all critical stages after formal proceedings have begun. For Sixth Amendment purposes, a criminal prosecution begins when adversary judicial proceedings have commenced, such as the filing of formal charges in this case. Because custodial interrogation is a critical stage of prosecution, the Sixth Amendment is violated by post-charge interrogation unless the defendant has waived his right to counsel. Interrogation includes not only direct questioning, but also any other conduct by the police intended to elicit a response. The police conduct here (telling the man that the woman had implicated him and then bugging the conversation) constitutes prohibited interrogation.
Which of the following is not an exception to the general rule under the Commerce Clause prohibiting states from discriminating against out-of-state competition?
A
When the regulation is necessary to further an important, noneconomic state interest such as health or safety.
B
When the regulation furthers an important, noneconomic state interest such as health or safety and there are no reasonable alternatives available.
C
When the regulation limits access to privately owned in-state products.
D
When the state acts as a market participant.
A regulation limiting access to privately owned in-state products would violate the negative implications of the Commerce Clause; there is no exception for such regulations.
