A high school sophomore had recently obtained her
driver’s license. One evening, she was driving home from
the library when a heavy rain began to fall. The rainstorm
completely washed out the roadway, and the girl’s car
got stuck in an embankment in a remote area. She exited
the car and began walking, hoping to be rescued by
another motorist. Miraculously, the girl came upon a
hotel. She entered the lobby and told the owner about her
predicament. Realizing that the girl had no place else to
stay, the owner told her that he had a room available and
that the room charge would be $300 per night. The owner
said this knowing that the standard room charge at the
motel was $200 per night. Due to the inclement weather,
the girl was forced to stay for two nights.
How much are the girl’s parents liable to pay the hotel
owner for their daughter’s two-night stay?
(A) Nothing, because parents are not liable for
necessaries furnished to a minor.
(B) Nothing, because contracts of minors are voidable.
(C) $400, which is the reasonable rate of
furnishing necessaries to their daughter.
(D) $600, which is the contract rate of furnishing
necessaries to their daughter.
A man purchased a new bike. One day, he rode the new
bike to a local movie theater for the eight o’clock show
and parked his bike out front. As it was a small town,
he felt comfortable leaving his bike on the rack without
locking it. While the man was in the movie theater, the
ticket agent decided to take the bike out for a spin. The
ticket agent rode the bike once around the block and
placed it back in the rack just as the man had left it. As
the ticket agent was placing the bike back in the rack, the
handlebars gently rubbed against the rail. After the movie,
the man retrieved the bike and had no idea that it had been
moved, until he noticed a small scratch on the handlebars.
If the man files suit against the ticket agent, will he prevail?
(A) No, because the man was unaware of the
ticket agent’s use.
(B) No, because there was insufficient damage to
the man’s bike.
(C) Yes, for trespass to a chattel.
(D) Yes, for conversion.
A bar manager told one of his bartenders that there
was a new type of home blender on the market that
could handle the ingredients of any drink, as well as the
ingredients to make salsa and other chopped foods. The
bar manager intended to wait in line to buy the blender
at a special sale, and the bartender asked the manager
to pick an additional blender up for the bartender as
well. The bar manager purchased three blenders and
kept one for himself. He sold one to the bartender for
the sale purchase price and gave the second to his sister
as a gift. Two weeks later, the bar manager came across
information on the Internet that the blender manufacturer
was recalling the blenders because the motors could
overheat and could throw sparks, causing a fire. The bar
manager called his sister right away and left a message,
but she didn’t get it in time. Her blender sparked, causing
a fire in her kitchen that burned her right hand and caused
major property damage. The bartender was also burned
by his blender, although he didn’t suffer nearly as much
property damage. The bar manager apologized to the
bartender for not having told him about the recall.
If the sister and the bartender file a strict products
liability action against the bar manager for damages,
what is the likely outcome?
(A) The bartender and the sister will prevail
against the bar manager, because the bar
manager is strictly liable.
(B) The bartender, but not the sister, will prevail
against the bar manager, because the bar manager
failed to warn the bartender about the recall.
(C) Neither the bartender nor the sister will
prevail against the bar manager, because the
bar manager is not a commercial seller.
(D) Neither the bartender nor the sister will
prevail against the bar manager, because the
bar manager did not tamper with the blender.
An engineer sued her employer in federal district
court alleging violations of False Claims Act, a federal
statute. The engineer filed her complaint and the
employer timely filed an answer. No other pleadings
were entered in the case. Discovery commenced.
One month after the employer’s answer was filed, the
engineer filed a written demand for a trial by jury.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) Because more than 14 days passed between the
filing of the last pleading and demand for trial
by jury, the case will not be tried by a jury.
(B) Upon proper motion, the court has the discretion
to grant relief and order a trial by jury.
(C) The Seventh Amendment requires that the
case be tried by a jury, regardless of the point
at which the demand is filed.
(D) The Sixth and Seventh Amendments require
that the case be tried by a jury, regardless of
the point at which the demand is filed.
A married couple was waiting on line for tickets to
a movie. A man waiting ahead of them was quite
overweight. The husband made several comments
to his wife about how fat the man was, and the man
overheard. He confronted the husband and demanded
an apology. The husband refused. The man again
demanded an apology and threatened to punch the wife
if he did not get one. To show he was serious, the man
pushed the wife and waved a closed fist in her face.
Fearing that his wife would suffer a heart attack from
shock, the husband reached down, grabbed a nearby
pipe lying on the ground, and beat the man in the head
with it repeatedly. The man died from head injuries.
If the husband is prosecuted for criminal homicide,
should the court instruct the jury on voluntary
manslaughter in addition to murder?
(A) No, because the husband clearly intended to
kill or at least seriously injure the man.
(B) No, because the husband was the initial
wrongdoer, having provoked the man with
his rude comments.
(C) Yes, because the jury could reasonably
conclude that the husband lacked the intent
to kill or injure and was merely engaged in
(D) Yes, because the jury could find that the husband
unreasonably, but honestly, believed that deadly
force was needed to defend his wife.
A woman loved to watch her neighborhood football
games. According to the neighborhood tradition,
whenever a player scored a touchdown, the player would
immediately rush full-speed at one of the fans on the
sidelines and jokingly tackle him or her. One Saturday,
as the woman and her neighbors are enjoying a game,
a player scores a touchdown. He immediately looks for
his little brother on the sidelines, intending to tackle
him. The woman, standing directly behind the player’s
brother, sees the player looking in their direction.
Exhilarated by the play, she jokingly calls out, “Come
on, big boy!” The player charges at her. Realizing that
she has become the player’s target, the woman ducks,
but the player succeeds in tackling her. The woman falls
to the ground and sustains a concussion.
If the woman now brings suit against the player for her
injuries, will she recover?
(A) No, because injuries sustained during sporting
events are foreseeable.
(B) No, because the woman consented to the
(C) Yes, because the woman did not expressly
consent to the contact.
(D) Yes, because the woman suffered a harmful
and offensive contact.
A tenant rented an apartment and entered into a written
lease agreement for a term of six years with a monthly
rental fee of $1,500. The tenant resided in the apartment
for three years. Then, the tenant drafted a written
agreement in which he transferred his entire interest
for two years to a friend. According to the written
instrument, the friend was obligated to directly pay the
tenant $2,000 per month for the term of his occupancy.
For the next six months, the friend paid the tenant
$2,000 each month, of which the tenant paid the
landlord $1,500. During the seventh and eighth
months, the friend continued to make his $2,000
payments to the tenant. However, the tenant did not
make any rental payments to the landlord for those two
months. After not receiving his rental payments, the
landlord went to the apartment and found the friend in
possession. The landlord then sued the friend for the
two months’ rent that had not been paid.
For whom should the court enter a judgment?
(A) The friend, because he made his monthly
rental payments to the tenant.
(B) The friend, because as a subtenant he is not
obligated to the landlord.
(C) The landlord, because the tenant transferred
his entire interest.
(D) The landlord, because there is privity of
contract between the landlord and the friend.
An elderly man’s house was frequently the target of
vandalism by local teenagers. Tired of having to repair
the damage they did to his home, the man decided to
lie in wait for teenagers on the night before Halloween,
when they often vandalized his home. True to form,
teenagers in costume appeared and began spray-painting
the man’s house. Wanting to scare the teenagers, the man
fired a shotgun over their heads. Some of the shotgun
pellets went through the top of a tall hat one of the
teenagers, who was dressed as Abraham Lincoln, but
the pellets did not harm him. The man was subsequently