Reference no: EM131681702
Farmer grows grain on his farm in Nebraska for feed for the chickens that he raises on that same farm. He later sells the chickens to meat packing companies within the state of Nebraska. The production of grain on the farm:
A. Affects interstate commerce and, therefore, can be subject to federal regulation.
B. Only indirectly affects interstate commerce and, therefore, can be subject to state, but not federal, regulation.
C. Only indirectly affects interstate commerce, and thus is not subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause.
D. Directly affects intrastate commerce, but more indirectly affects interstate commerce and, therefore, can be subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause.
Larry, an Oregon resident, inherited land in Missouri. Through a Missouri attorney, Larry sold the land to Will, a Missouri resident, under a valid written sales contract. Larry later refused to go through with the sales deal, so Will sued Larry in a Missouri court.
Larry claimed the Missouri court had no jurisdiction over him because has never been in Missouri or had any other contacts with Missouri. Assume that the Missouri court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Does the Missouri court otherwise have jurisdiction to hear this case?
A. No, because there is diversity of citizenship in the case, only a federal court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
B. Yes, because the Missouri court can claim in rem (property) jurisdiction over Larry in this case as the owner/seller of the Missouri property.
C. Yes, because the Statute of Frauds applies to the sale of land, and the contract was written, the Missouri court has personal jurisdiction over Will, and Larry.
D. No, because although the Missouri court has property jurisdiction over Will, the court does not have the necessary property jurisdiction over Larry in this case.
Mimi took her granddaughter to Roller Coaster World theme park often to ride the Thriller Diller roller coaster. The roller coaster is in a fenced, gated area. Customers pay for the ride as they board the Thriller Diller, or at the end of the ride as they leaved the gated area.
On Saturday, Mimi and her granddaughter boarded the Thriller Diller, and waved at the attendant as the ride began. At the end of the ride, Mimi refused to pay for the ride.
The most likely conclusion is that:
A. Mimi's actions implied that she intended to pay for the ride; she is legally bound to pay for the ride.
B. Mimi's actions implied that she intended to pay for the ride, but she is not legally bound to pay as there was no written agreement, or evidence of an agreement, such as a ticket for the ride.
C. Applying the subjective intent test, Mimi is not bound to pay for the ride because she and the attendant did not discuss the need for paying for a ticket for the ride.
D. Applying the objective test, there was no clearly communicated offer and acceptance, thus no enforceable contract; Mimi is not bound to pay for the ride.