Question: Hughes Car earns a substantial salary for a car dealership with respect to which he pays all required taxes. At times, Hughes deposits his salary into a foreign bank account. On one occasion, he withdrew the funds and purchased a home. Which of the following is true?
Answer Options: Hughes has potentially committed a RICO violation. Hughes is not guilty of money laundering because the money he deposited came from legal sources. Hughes has committed the tort of conversion. Hughes is guilty of money laundering because he deposited it into a foreign bank account. Correct Answer: Hughes is not guilty of money laundering because the money he deposited came from legal sources.
Question: Victor E. Lapp purchases a race track from Cubby Bear. Part of the contract includes a provision by which Cubby agrees not to own or be involved in the race track business for 5 years. What are the contractual consequences of that provision?
Answer Options: Unenforceable because it is unconscionable. Unenforceable because it is not legally sufficient consideration. Enforceable as a covenant not to compete. Unenforceable because Cubby cannot be compelled not to be involved in or to own a race track. Correct Answer: Enforceable as a covenant not to compete.
Question: Mollie passes a street peddler who sells everything from popcorn to paintings. Mollie decides to purchase a painting purportedly painted and signed by Picasso. The asking price of the painting is $1,000. Mollie asks the peddler if it is an original. The peddler responds by saying good enough for that loudest laugh like an old television movie. Mollie pays. That’s how she saw an original. After purchasing the painting, she discovers it is worth $1.50. If Mollie sues the peddler, what is the likely outcome?
Answer Options: She should win because the contract was unconscionable. She should lose because it was not an adhesion contract. She should win because she relied on the peddler’s statement regarding the painting. She should lose because reliance on the statement made by the peddler was not justifiable. Correct Answer: She should lose because reliance on the statement made by the peddler was not justifiable.
Question: Victor E. Lapp purchased a motorcycle. Spending 15 minutes to save 15% on insurance, Victor signs a contract. One day, Victor’s motorcycle was crushed in a parking lot while he was shopping. When he called his insurance agent, he was told that the insurance only covered damage caused by a lizard. The contract Victor signed is best described as follows:
Answer Options: An adhesion contract likely deemed to be unconscionable. A contract with an exculpatory clause. An implied contract. A unilateral contract consummated by Victor signing the contract. Correct Answer: An adhesion contract likely deemed to be unconscionable.
Question: Amanda hired a private jet to fly her from California to Montana. The pilot was drunk and crashed the plane into the mountains. Although Amanda survived, she became paralyzed for life. After winning a tort action against the pilot, she discovers that flying while intoxicated is a crime. Amanda files a criminal complaint against the pilot. What is the probable outcome?
Answer Options: Because she prevailed in the tort action, it will be easy for her to win the criminal case. Amanda and/or her attorney can only bring a criminal action against the pilot if the state prosecutor allows it. Amanda should have asked the judge in the tort case to convict the pilot of the crime. Correct Answer: Amanda and/or her attorney can only bring a criminal action against the pilot if the state prosecutor allows it.
Question: An out-of-state motorist is pulled over for speeding which of the following is true?
Answer Options: A state court does not have jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident. Only a federal court would have jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident. The state has jurisdiction over the out-of-state motorist because he or she violated the state speeding laws while he or she was in the state. A state court does not have jurisdiction over the out-of-state motorist because he or she was only passing through. Correct Answer: The state has jurisdiction over the out-of-state motorist because he or she violated the state speeding laws while he or she was in the state.
Question: Barney files a tort suit against Courtney, who fails to respond. Courtney is served with the complaint and believes that Barney would not win the case against her. So Courtney ignores the complaint and does not file an answer. What is the likely consequential outcome?
Answer Options: Courtney has no obligation to respond to a case she believes she would win. Barney can win the case by filing a motion for a default judgment that is granted by the court. To prevail, Barney must re-file the case against Courtney. The judge will consider the case and decide whether Barney is entitled to damages. Correct Answer: Barney can win the case by filing a motion for a default judgment that is granted by the court.
Question: The difference between a bilateral and unilateral contract is which of the following?
Answer Options: In a bilateral contract, performance by the offeree is acceptance of the offer. There is no difference. In a unilateral contract both the offeror and offeree make promises. In a bilateral contract both the offeror and offeree make promises. Correct Answer: In a bilateral contract both the offeror and offeree make promises.
Question: Victor E. Lapp, a Ohio citizen sues Hughes Car, a Michigan resident in a federal court located in Michigan for a tort that occurred in Michigan. The amount in controversy is $150,000. The federal court refuses to hear the case. The basis for the court’s refusal to hear the case is which of the following?
Answer Options: The court will refuse to hear the case because the plaintiff lacks standing. The court will refuse to hear the case because the venue is improper. The court is wrong not to hear the case because it has diversity jurisdiction. The court will refuse to hear the case because not all the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are met. Correct Answer: The court will refuse to hear the case because not all the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are met.
Question: In preparing a criminal case against a wrongdoer who committed a tort that is also a crime, the state prosecutor can do which of the following?
Answer Options: Ask the court to allow the plaintiff’s attorney to join with the prosecution. Request the judge of the civil case to enter a guilty verdict against the wrongdoer. The state prosecutor must try the case without any assistance from the plaintiff’s attorney. Waive his or her right to litigate the case since the plaintiff’s attorney is more familiar with the case. Correct Answer: The state prosecutor must try the case without any assistance from the plaintiff’s attorney.
Question: While on patrol two police officers see a man running from a house holding a gun. They see him jump into a car driven by another person. What would be the justification for the police officers to chase the car to question and possibly arrest the person they saw running from the house?
Answer Options: Theoretically, they should go to a judge and show probable cause and request a warrant. No justification because the incident is most likely a civil matter. No justification, they should go to the house to determine what happened. Total justification because based on what they saw, there is sufficient probable cause to follow and possibly make an arrest. Correct Answer: Total justification because based on what they saw, there is sufficient probable cause to follow and possibly make an arrest.
Question: Under what circumstances is a defendant read his or her Miranda rights?
Answer Options: To inform the defendant, he or she is entitled to a speedy trial. Miranda rights are optional – not mandatory. Anytime the authorities ask the defendant questions that could incriminate the defendant. Only after being arrested and being informed that the prosecution intends to try the defendant for a crime. Correct Answer: Anytime the authorities ask the defendant questions that could incriminate the defendant.
Question: Goldie Locks and Gene Poole, both attorneys, settle a negligence lawsuit filed by Goldie’s client against Gene’s client. Goldie’s client was a $1,000,000 and the settlement amount was $90,000. Although Gene’s client initially agreed to settle the case and informed Gene of his desire to settle, he changes his mind because he does not believe he was negligent. Which of the following is true?
Answer Options: The settlement is not enforceable because a settlement is not a contract. Gene’s client cannot change his mind because the settlement of a court case is a binding contract. The settlement is not enforceable due to a lack of consideration. Gene’s attorney must disregard the settlement and litigate the case because his client changed his mind. Correct Answer: Gene’s client cannot change his mind because the settlement of a court case is a binding contract.
Question: Sam, driving under the influence, causes a car accident that results in the death of Tanya. Sam is arrested and charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year. This crime is
Answer Options: a tort. a civil wrong. a misdemeanor. a felony. Correct Answer: a felony.
Question: The difference between a felony and misdemeanor is which of the following?
Answer Options: There is no difference. The penalties for a misdemeanor are usually more serious than they are for a felony. A misdemeanor is a civil charge and a felony is a criminal charge. The penalties for a felony are usually greater than they are for misdemeanors. Correct Answer: The penalties for a felony are usually greater than they are for misdemeanors.
Question: When Asher was sixteen, he purchased a motorcycle that he financed entirely with the motorcycle dealer. The monthly payment was $250. After Asher turned 18, he continued to make the monthly payments. Just before Asher turned 19, he was in an accident and totaled the motorcycle. Asher then disaffirms the contract. What is the likely outcome?
Answer Options: The contract will be disaffirmed because Asher was a minor when the contract was consummated. The contract will not be disaffirmed because it became enforceable when Asher purchased the motorcycle. The contract will be disaffirmed because motorcycles are dangerous. The contract will not be disaffirmed because by making payments after he became an adult, Asher affirmed the contract. Correct Answer: The contract will not be disaffirmed because by making payments after he became an adult, Asher affirmed the contract.
Question: In the winter, the Torch Restaurant has a fireplace in the front of the restaurant; in front of the fireplace there is an iron gate. Gail and John celebrating their engagement decide to roast marshmallows in the fire. John slips and burns his arm. He sues the restaurant for negligence. Which of the following is the likely outcome?
Answer Options: John loses because the fireplace surrounded by a gate was a known hazard that John knew or should of known was not appropriate for roasting marshmallows. None of the alternatives are correct. John wins because as a business invitee, the restaurant is responsible for any injury a customer incurs on its premises. John loses because the restaurant was negligent for having a fireplace on its premises. Correct Answer: John wins because as a business invitee, the restaurant is responsible for any injury a customer incurs on its premises.
Question: Walking down the street, Peter finds a gas can and tosses it onto Paul’s property. Paul’s dog knocks the can over causing it to ignite and burn Paul’s lawn. What is the likely outcome of Paul’s lawsuit against Peter?
Answer Options: Paul recovers all of his damages because Peter placing the gas can on his property is trespass. Paul recovers nothing from Peter because Paul should have removed the can from his property. Peter will be able to assert the affirmative defense of contributory negligence because Paul’s dog should not have been unleashed. Paul recovers nothing from Peter because the dog knocking over the gas can was a superseding intervening event. Correct Answer: Paul recovers all of his damages because Peter placing the gas can on his property is trespass.
Question: When Asher was sixteen, he purchased a motorcycle that he financed entirely with the motorcycle dealer. The monthly payment was $250. After Asher turned 18, he continued to make the monthly payments. Just before Asher turned 19, he was in an accident and totaled the motorcycle. Asher then disaffirms the contract. What is the likely outcome?
Answer Options: The contract will be disaffirmed because Asher was a minor when the contract was consummated. The contract will not be disaffirmed because it became enforceable when Asher purchased the motorcycle. The contract will be disaffirmed because motorcycles are dangerous. The contract will not be disaffirmed because by making payments after he became an adult, Asher affirmed the contract. Correct Answer: The contract will not be disaffirmed because by making payments after he became an adult, Asher affirmed the contract.