1. A daughter was appointed guardian of her elderly father following an adjudication of his mental incompetence. The father had experienced periods of dementia during which he did not fully understand what he was doing. The father later contracted to purchase an automobile at a fair price from a seller who was unaware of the guardianship. At the time of the purchase, the father was lucid and fully understood the nature and purpose of the transaction. What is the legal status of the transaction?
(A) The contract is enforceable, because a reasonable person in the situation of the seller would have thought that the father had the capacity to make the contract.
(B) The contract is enforceable, because it was made on fair terms and the seller had no knowledge of the father’s guardianship.
(C) The contract is void, because the father was under guardianship at the time it was made.
(D) The contract is voidable at the option of the father.
2. Two sisters own a single tract of land as tenants in common, each holding a one-half interest. The younger sister entered into a three-year written lease with a tenant; the lease described by metes and bounds a specified portion of the land, which consisted of about 40% of the total tract. The tenant went into sole possession of the leased portion of the land. The older sister has sued both the younger sister and the tenant to establish the older sister’s right to possession of the leased portion of the land. Who is likely to prevail?
(A) The older sister, because the younger sister cannot unilaterally partition the land without the older sister’s consent.
(B) The older sister, because the younger sister may not lease her undivided interest in the land without the older sister’s consent.
(C) The younger sister and the tenant, because the older sister has been excluded only from the specified portion of the land subject to the lease, which makes up less than one-half of the land’s total area.
(D) The younger sister and the tenant, because the younger sister’s lease to the tenant was necessarily for less than a fee simple interest.
3. A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions. Is this law constitutional?
(A) No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.
(B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
(C) Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by other means.
(D) Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and therefore is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.
4. . A defendant was prosecuted for mail fraud. At trial, the defendant moved to have all witnesses excluded from the courtroom, and the court granted the motion. The government named the investigating FBI agent as its designated representative. Upon learning that the agent would be giving testimony during the trial, the defendant moved that the agent also be excluded from the courtroom. Should the defendant’s motion be granted?
(A) No, provided that the government can show that the agent’s presence is essential to the presentation of its case.
(B) No, because the government has a right to have its designated representative remain in the courtroom through- out the trial.
(C) Yes, because the agent’s testimony might be influenced by the testimony of other witnesses.
(D) Yes, because the defendant has a right to exclude all persons who may be called as government witnesses.
5. . A man entered a tavern in an obviously intoxicated condition, was refused service, and was ordered to leave and escorted out. Just after leaving the tavern, the man staggered across the road toward a liquor store. As he was crossing the road, the man was struck by a car and severely injured. The man sued the tavern for his personal injuries. At trial, the evidence established the facts as set out above. At the close of the evidence, both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law. How should the court rule on these motions?
(A) Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because reasonable jurors could conclude that the accident was foreseeable.
(B) Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because a tavern is a place of public accommodation.
(C) Grant the tavern’s motion, because there is no evidence that the tavern breached a duty to the man.
(D) Grant the man’s motion, because it is undisputed that by being ejected from the tavern, the man was put at risk.
6. A protester brought an action in federal court against a police officer, alleging that the officer’s use of force in arresting the protester violated the protester’s federal civil rights. During the jury trial, eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony on the arrest. At the close of evidence, the protester moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. The court instructed the jury that the protester’s burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence, rather than the correct burden of preponderance of the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the officer, and the court entered judgment accordingly. What is the protester’s best option for challenging the judgment?
(A) Seek a new trial, because the jury instruction affected the protester’s substantial rights.
(B) Seek a new trial, because the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
(C) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury did not have legally sufficient evidence to find for the officer.
(D) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury’s findings were clearly erroneous.
7. An attempt was made to hijack a commercial airliner while it was in flight from San Francisco to New Orleans. Within minutes, however, the hijacker was seized, and the plane proceeded to its destination. Upon the plane’s arrival, television stations broadcast pictures of the passengers as they disembarked. Among the passengers pictured on television was a businessman who was supposed to be in Chicago on company business. The disclosure that the businessman was in New Orleans and not in Chicago at the time resulted in the loss of his position with his company and great humiliation and embarrassment for him. If the businessman asserts a claim against the television stations for broadcasting his picture as he disembarked, is he likely to prevail?
(A) Yes, because the businessman’s location was revealed against his wishes.
(B) Yes, because publication of the television pictures caused the businessman pecuniary loss.
(C) No, because the humiliation and embarrassment did not result in physical harm to the businessman.
(D) No, because the scene shown on television was newsworthy.
8. A company contracted with a builder to construct a new corporate headquarters for a fixed price of $100 million. At the time of the contract, structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item. Before work began on the project, tornado damage shut down the production facility of the biggest structural steel supplier in the country, and the price of structural steel increased by 20% as a result. The builder informed the company of the steel price increase, and the parties then orally agreed to increase the project price to $101 million. The builder proceeded with construction and delivered the project on time. The company paid the builder $100 million but refused to pay the additional $1 million. If the builder sues the company for $1 million, is the builder likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the modification was never reduced to a writing signed by the party to be charged.
(B) No, because there was no consideration for the modification of the contract.
(C) Yes, because the company’s promise was supported by consideration.
(D) Yes, because the modification was fair and equitable in view of the unanticipated increase in the price of structural steel.
9. At a defendant’s trial for extortion, the prosecutor called a witness expecting her to testify that she had heard the defendant threaten a man with physical harm unless the man made payoffs to the defendant. The witness denied ever having heard the defendant make such threats, even though she had testified to that effect before the grand jury. The prosecutor now seeks to admit the witness’s grand jury testimony. How should the court rule with regard to the grand jury testimony?
(A) Admit the testimony, because it contains a statement by a party-opponent.
(B) Admit the testimony, both for impeachment and for substantive use, because the witness made the inconsistent statement under oath at a formal proceeding.
(C) Admit the testimony under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule.
(D) Exclude the testimony for substantive use, because it is a testimonial statement.
10. A man arranged to have custom-made wooden shutters installed on the windows of his home. The contractor who installed the shutters did so by drilling screws and brackets into the exterior window frames and the shutters. The man later agreed to sell the home to a buyer. The sales agreement did not mention the shutters, the buyer did not inquire about them, and the buyer did not conduct a walkthrough inspection of the home before the closing. The man conveyed the home to the buyer by warranty deed. After the sale closed, the buyer noticed that the shutters and brackets had been removed from the home and that the window frames had been repaired and repainted. The buyer demanded that the man return the shutters and pay the cost of reinstallation, claiming that the shutters had been conveyed to him with the sale of the home. When the man refused, the buyer sued. Is the buyer likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the sales agreement did not mention the shutters.
(B) No, because the window frames had been repaired and repainted after removal of the shutters.
(C) Yes, because the shutters had become fixtures.
(D) Yes, because the man gave the buyer a warranty deed and the absence of the shutters violated a covenant of the deed.
Warning: Undefined variable $in_same_cat in /www/wwwroot/mtexam.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/EXP.GKFEED.COM/function.php on line 27
Warning: Undefined variable $excluded_categories in /www/wwwroot/mtexam.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/EXP.GKFEED.COM/function.php on line 27