Reference no: EM131149297

1. Assume that Virginia enacted a law prohibiting, until further notice, all grocery stores in Virginia from selling all powdered spices manufactured in, or shipped from, Maryland. This law was enacted because it was discovered that the spices recently manufactured in Maryland were infected with bacteria. Determine the constitutionality of the Maryland statute. The statute is:

A. Unconstitutional; it violates grocery store owners' substantive and procedural due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments because they are private businesses.

B. Unconstitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

C. Constitutional; it is a valid exercise of Maryland's police power.

D. Constitutional; the statute involves the sale of goods which is valid under UCC rules, thus, the state constitution does not apply.

2. Dan went to Doctor to have an x-ray. Dan did not sign a written contract, and Dan and Doctor did not make an oral agreement regarding the x-ray. When Doctor billed Dan $500 for the x-ray, Dan refused to pay. Doctor sued Dan to recover the $500. Which of the following is true about Doctor's lawsuit?

A. Doctor can recover under the quasi-contract theory of promissory estoppel.

B. Doctor can recover under an implied contract theory.

C. Doctor cannot recover because there was no express contract.

D. Doctor cannot recover because Dan did not give consideration for the bargain.

3. Sam orally agreed to sell Jamie some land for $500,000. Jamie paid Sam the $500,000; Sam gave Jamie the deed to the land. Jamie took possession of the land and began building a cabin on it. One month later, Sam tried to retake possession of the land by arguing that the contract for the sale was invalid because it was oral, not written. Sam sued Jamie to invalidate the contract and retake the land.

The court will likely conclude that Sam will:

A. Win; the sale exceeded $500 so the contract must be written to be valid under the Statute of Frauds.

B. Win; all land sales contracts must be written.

C. Lose; because the contract was fully executed Sam cannot rescind the contract.

D. Lose; because Jamie had begun building a cabin on the property, Sam cannot rescind the contract.

4. Roxy, while driving through Wyoming to her home in Montana, accidentally lost control of her car and drove it through a window into a store owned by Colt. Colt sued Roxy in a Wyoming court for damages to his store.

Will the Wyoming court likely be able to exercise jurisdiction over Roxy?

A. No, because Wyoming has no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot exercise its long arm statute only in cases involving automobile accidents.

B. No, because Wyoming has no in personam jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot justify minimum contacts in this case.

C. Yes, Wyoming can exercise jurisdiction in this case because there is a federal question involved due to the diversity of citizenship between the parties.

D. Yes, because Wyoming can assert in personam jurisdiction over Roxy under the minimum contacts test.

5. Assume a salesperson intentionally made one of the following statements - knowing that the statement was false - to a customer considering a purchase. Which statement could create liability for fraudulent misrepresentation if the customer made the purchase?

A. "In my opinion, this car is in flawless mechanical condition."

B. "This crane will probably lift about 10,000 pounds."

C. "This car is a real gem."

D. "This is an original painting by the artist, Pablo Picasso."

6. Kim carelessly parked her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolled down the hill and knocked down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire that spread to a barn several yards away. The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence?

A. Yes, because Kim was negligent in parking the car.

B. Yes, because Kim set in motion the chain of events that resulted in damage to Ray's car, even though Kim did not directly hit the car.

C. No, because of the unforeseeable intervening force doctrine.

D. No, regardless of Kim's negligence in parking the car as her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and harm that occurred to Ray.

7. Lee sued Don in negligence. Lee's losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Lee is found to be contributorily negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Lee like recover from Don?

A. None.

B. $100,000.

C. $100,000, less the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Li was responsible.

D. $100,000, less the percentage of fault for which Li was responsible, so long as Li was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries.

8. X and Y agreed that X would sell Y his small business, including the land on which the business was situated, for $500,000. Both X and Y knew at the time the contract was formed that the business was actually worth $800,000. Is this a valid, enforceable contract?

A. Yes, provided the contract was in writing, in accordance with the Statute of Frauds and the parties freely consented.

B. Yes, provided the contract was in accordance with state statutory law that permits real estate sales for 40% or more below market value.

C. No, because $500,000 is not valid consideration for a business worth $800,000.

D. No, because X has no pre-existing legal duty to sell his business.

9. Ralph, a 16-year old minor, is manager for the high school football team. Ralph signed a contract to purchase alcoholic beverages from Liquormart, Inc. for the team party. This contract is:

A. Void as a matter of law because it is illegal to sell alcohol to minors by state law.

B. Void only if Ralph misrepresented his age and told Liquormart he was an adult.

C. Valid and enforceable, but Ralph has the right to disaffirm because he is a minor.

D. Valid and enforceable, if Liquormart knew that Ralph was a minor.

10. Reg offered to sell his motorcycle to Thelma for $8,000. Thelma replied, "Your price is too high. I will purchase your motorcycle for $7,000". Reg agreed and they committed their agreement to writing. This transaction can be characterized as:

A. An enforceable contract because Reg's acceptance of Thelma's offer was a clearly communicated acceptance.

B. An enforceable contract because Thelma's counteroffer was less than Reg's original offer

C. An unenforceable contract because Thelma's offer was not the mirror image of Reg's original offer as is required under common law contract rules.

D. An unenforceable contract unless either Reg or Thelma is a merchant, as defined by the UCC, because sale of personal property contracts are valid only if one of the parties to the contract is a merchant.

11. Someone who recovers damages for breach of contract typically can recover:

A. Only those compensatory damages/losses that can be proven with reasonable certainty.

B. For all consequences of the breach, e.g., pain and suffering, whether or not the damages are foreseeable.

C. Only for foreseeable damages.

D. Punitive damages.

12. Ed and Nora signed a contract that included a statement, "No evidence of oral negotiations may be used to change the terms of this contractual writing." Later Ed sued Nora for a breach of contract. In court, Nora testified that she did not breach their agreement because, after signing the written contract, she and Ed orally agreed to change the contract terms. Nora's testimony will:

A. Be admitted by the court as evidence that Nora did not breach the contract.

B. Be admitted as a valid exception under the Parol Evidence Rule.

C. Be admitted if Nora is a minor because the Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to contracts with minors.

D. Not be admitted under the Parol Evidence Rule.

13. A city ordinance permits street vendors to operate only within certain commercial areas of the city to prevent dangerous traffic congestion. The street vendors sued the city claiming that the restrictions were a violation of their equal protection rights as other businesses are not restricted to operating only in certain commercial areas within the city.

How would you classify the ordinance?

A. Constitutional; because the city has a justifiable purpose in enacting the ordinance, it does not violate the equal protection rights of street vendors.

B. Constitutional; because street vendors are private businesses, they are not protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

C. Unconstitutional; the ordinance unduly discriminates against street vendors as compared to other business owners and thus, violates the vendors' equal protection rights.

D. Unconstitutional; privately owned vendors, unlike public businesses, have a constitutional right to conduct business in any commercial area of their choice.

Part 2: Two Multiple-Choice Questions Based on the Same Scenario

Answer the next two questions regarding the following scenario:

Scenario: Jones, a resident of Arizona, booked reservations for a vacation at World Hotels, Inc. in Cabo Mar, Mexico. World Hotels is an international hotel chain incorporated in Delaware with hotels in North and South America; World Hotels has no hotels in Arizona but does advertise and book reservations for all its hotels over the internet, in any state. World Hotels has booked reservations in the past with residents of Arizona.

While a guest in the hotel in Cabo Mar, Jones was walking across the hotel lobby, and slipped and fell on the wet marble floor that had been just washed by the maintenance staff. The staff had placed a "wet floor" sign on the lobby floor on the side wall of the lobby.

Jones was taken to the nearest Mexican hospital where surgery was necessary to place a pin in his broken leg. Anxious to return home and see his regular doctor, Jones flew out of Mexico shortly after the surgery. He required two plane seats and an ambulance to meet him at various airports. His health insurance would not cover his hospital stay in Mexico as it was located outside the U.S. When back in Arizona, Jones was unable to work for 8 weeks and required another surgery to remove the pin. He also required several weeks of physical therapy.

14. Jones wants to sue World Hotels, Inc. for negligence for $450,000 to recover all his medical expenses in Mexico and the US; for $50,000 for the cost of the plane trip from Mexico to Arizona, the 2 plane seats and ambulance costs in various airports; $10,000 for 8 weeks of lost wages; and $50,000 for pain and suffering resulting from the injury. Can he sue in federal court?

A. Yes, because federal court always has jurisdiction over citizens of different states.

B. No, because federal court does not have jurisdiction in cases that do not involve federal laws.

C. Yes, because the federal court may have jurisdiction over citizens of different states and the lawsuit involves damages greater than $75,000.

D. No, because the federal court has no jurisdiction over an accident that occurred in Mexico.

15. It would be easier for Jones to bring the lawsuit in Arizona state court, but he wonders if the court can get World Hotels to come to Arizona. Can the Arizona state court impose jurisdiction over World Hotels to bring the company to court in Arizona?

A. No, because the subject of the lawsuit took place in a foreign country.

B. No, because the corporation does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona to allow the Arizona court to use the long arm statute to establish jurisdiction in Arizona.

C. Yes, because the Jones is a resident of Arizona and he is the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

D. Yes, because World Hotels has sufficient minimum contact with the state of Arizona to justify the court's use of the long arm statute.

16. Clarkson and Lee did not have a contract, but Clarkson completed extensive landscaping in Lee's yard by mistake while Lee was away on vacation. Clarkson sent Lee a bill for the landscaping service but Lee refused to pay.

Determine the likely result if Clark sues Lee to recover the costs of the landscaping.

17. Bob is at the Boston Biceps Bodybuilding Club riding an exercise bike. Bob wants to change the channel on the television that is mounted high on a nearby wall. He reaches for the remote control device and finds that another member has accidentally taken the remote control and left behind a cellular phone. Bob drags the exercise bike over to the television. He stands on the seat of the exercise bike in order to reach the television, but the seat post breaks and Bob falls to the floor. Bob is injured and cannot control his temper. He puts his entire 170 pounds into destroying the bike and throws it across the room against the wall, breaking off several pieces, with the handlebars landing on the running track. Half an hour later, another patron, Randy, trips over the handlebars as he is running on the track and is injured. Randy and Bob both sue the manufacturer and the health club under products liability for their injuries. Randy also wants to bring suits against Bob and the club for negligence. Discuss their cases.

Randy v. Manufacturer (products liability) Bob v. Manufacturer (products liability)

Randy v. Bob (negligence) Randy v. Club (negligence)