On March 1, Seller mailed Buyer a signed written offer to sell a used tractor for $20,000. On March 5, Buyer mailed a letter accepting the offer. On March 6, before Buyer’s letter arrived, Seller phoned Buyer and said the offer was revoked. Buyer’s letter reached Seller on March 7. Is there a contract?
Yes, because the acceptance took effect when Buyer mailed it on March 5. Under the mailbox rule, an acceptance sent by a reasonable method takes effect when it’s sent, not when it arrives. A revocation only works once the offeree receives it. Buyer accepted on March 5, so the March 6 call came too late.
A lumber dealer signed and sent a builder this letter: “We will sell you 500 boards at $4 each. This offer will stay open for 30 days.” The builder gave nothing in return for that promise. On day 10, the dealer told the builder the offer was withdrawn. On day 15, the builder accepted in writing. Is the dealer bound to sell the boards?
Yes, because a merchant’s signed written promise to hold an offer open is irrevocable for the stated time, up to three months. This is a firm offer under UCC § 2-205. A merchant’s signed writing that promises to keep an offer for goods open can’t be revoked during the stated time (up to three months), even without consideration. The dealer’s day-10 withdrawal had no effect, so the day-15 acceptance formed a contract.
A contractor agreed to build a garage for an owner for $40,000. Halfway through, with no unexpected problems, the contractor said he wouldn’t finish unless the owner agreed to pay $5,000 more. The owner agreed. The contractor finished the garage, and the owner paid only $40,000. Under the common law, can the contractor recover the extra $5,000?
No, because the contractor gave no new consideration for the promise to pay more. Under the common law pre-existing duty rule, promising to do what you’re already bound to do isn’t consideration. The contractor already had to finish the garage for $40,000, so the owner’s promise of $5,000 more isn’t enforceable. Nothing unexpected happened that might justify a fair modification.
A jogger saw a stranger struggling in a lake. She was a strong swimmer and could have helped with no risk to herself, but she kept running. The stranger drowned. The jogger didn’t cause the stranger to be in the water and had no relationship with him. Is the jogger liable in negligence?
No, because there’s generally no duty to rescue a stranger whose danger you didn’t create. Negligence needs a duty. As a general rule, a person has no duty to help or rescue a stranger. A duty arises in special cases, such as a special relationship, creating the danger or starting a rescue, and none of those apply here.
A construction company used dynamite to clear rock near a neighborhood. It followed every safety rule and took every reasonable precaution. The blast still threw debris that damaged a neighbor’s house. Is the company liable to the neighbor?
Yes, because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. Blasting is the classic abnormally dangerous activity. Anyone who carries it out is strictly liable for harm that comes from the activity’s dangers, like flying debris, however careful they were. The neighbor doesn’t need to prove fault.
Ann swung her fist at Ben, intending to hit him. Ben ducked, and Ann’s fist hit Carla, who was standing behind him. Ann didn’t know Carla was there. Is Ann liable to Carla for battery?
Yes, because Ann’s intent to hit Ben transfers to Carla. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, when someone intends a battery against one person and instead touches another, the intent carries over to the person actually hit. Ann intended a harmful touching, and she caused one to Carla, so she’s liable for battery.
A state law allows men, but not women, to apply for a certain state job. A woman challenges the law under the Equal Protection Clause. What standard of review will the court apply?
Intermediate scrutiny: the state must show the law is substantially related to an important government interest Classifications based on sex get intermediate scrutiny. The state must show the law is substantially related to an important government interest, and the Supreme Court requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” A flat ban on women applying is very unlikely to survive.
A city ordinance bans signs in public parks that criticize city officials. Signs on any other topic are allowed. A protester is fined for holding a sign criticizing the mayor in a city park. How will a court most likely treat the ordinance?
Apply strict scrutiny, because it’s a content-based limit on speech in a traditional public forum, and most likely strike it down. Parks are traditional public forums. A rule that singles out speech because of what it says is content-based, so it must pass strict scrutiny: necessary to a compelling interest and narrowly tailored. Banning criticism of officials won’t pass that test.
A citizen sues in federal court, claiming a federal program is unconstitutional. Her only injury is that she pays federal income tax and objects to how the money is spent. The program has nothing to do with religion. Will the court decide her claim on the merits?
No, because she lacks standing: a grievance shared by all taxpayers isn’t a concrete, particularized injury. To have standing, a plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury, caused by the defendant, that a court can fix. Being a taxpayer who disagrees with spending is a generalized grievance, so she lacks standing. The narrow exception for Establishment Clause challenges to spending doesn’t apply here.
Police lawfully arrested a suspect and took him to the station. Before officers asked him anything or read him his Miranda rights, he suddenly said, “I did it, I took the car.” At trial he moves to suppress the statement. Should the court suppress it?
No, because the statement was volunteered and not the result of interrogation. Miranda warnings are needed only for custodial interrogation, which means both custody and questioning or its functional equivalent. He was in custody, but no one questioned him or did anything likely to draw out a confession. A volunteered statement isn’t covered by Miranda.
Dan beat Victor badly, intending to cause him serious bodily injury but not to kill him. Victor survived. Dan is charged with attempted murder. What is Dan’s best defense?
Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill, and he intended only serious bodily injury. Attempt is a specific intent crime. To be guilty of attempted murder, the defendant must intend to kill. Intent to cause serious bodily injury can support a murder conviction if the victim dies, but it isn’t enough for attempted murder.
Officers stopped a car for speeding. While talking to the driver, an officer saw a bag of what he recognized as cocaine on the passenger seat, giving officers probable cause to believe more drugs were in the car. Without a warrant, they searched the car, including a closed backpack in the trunk, and found more cocaine. Is the cocaine from the backpack admissible?
Yes, because with probable cause to believe a car holds contraband, police may search any part of it, including containers, that could hold it. Under the automobile exception, police with probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband may search it without a warrant. The search can cover every part of the vehicle and any container where the contraband might be, including the trunk and a backpack.
A customer was hurt when a store’s ladder collapsed. To show the store knew about the danger, the customer calls a witness who will testify that a week earlier she told the store manager, “That ladder is broken.” The store objects that this is hearsay. How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because the statement is offered to show the store had notice, not to prove the ladder was broken. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it says. Here the statement is offered to show its effect on the listener: the store was warned. Whether or not the ladder really was broken, the warning shows notice, so it isn’t hearsay.
In a civil suit over a car crash, the plaintiff calls a police officer. The officer will testify that right after the crash, a visibly shaken bystander shouted, “The red truck ran the red light!” The bystander can’t be found for trial. Is the officer’s testimony admissible?
Yes, as an excited utterance about a startling event, made while under the stress it caused. The bystander’s shout is hearsay, but it fits the excited utterance exception in FRE 803(2). It’s about a startling event and was made while the bystander was still under the stress of excitement from it. Exceptions under Rule 803 apply whether or not the speaker is available.
Dana is on trial for assault. She says the other person attacked first. Dana calls a neighbor to testify that Dana has a reputation in the community as a peaceful person. The prosecution objects. How should the court rule?
Admit the testimony, because a criminal defendant may offer a pertinent character trait through reputation or opinion evidence. FRE 404(a)(2)(A) lets a criminal defendant offer evidence of her own pertinent trait, and peacefulness is pertinent to assault. Under Rule 405(a), she proves it by reputation or opinion testimony. Doing so opens the door for the prosecution to rebut it.
Alex and Blair owned a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Without telling Blair, Alex sold and deeded his interest to Casey. Later, Blair died. Her will left everything to her son, Drew. Who owns the house?
Casey and Drew, as tenants in common with equal shares. A joint tenant can sell his share without the others’ consent, and doing so severs the joint tenancy. Casey and Blair became tenants in common, each with half. Tenants in common have no survivorship rights, so Blair’s half passed under her will to Drew.
A state statute says: “No conveyance of land is valid against any later purchaser for value without notice, unless it is recorded.” Owen deeded land to Amy, who didn’t record. Owen then sold the same land to Ben, who paid fair value and had no notice of Amy’s deed. Amy then recorded. After that, Ben recorded. Who owns the land?
Ben, because he bought for value without notice of Amy’s unrecorded deed. This is a notice statute. A later purchaser for value who has no notice of an earlier unrecorded deed wins, whether or not he records first. Ben paid value and had no notice when he bought, so Amy’s earlier unrecorded deed isn’t valid against him.
Olivia owned a large tract of land next to a public road. She sold the back half to Pat. The back half has no access to any public road except across Olivia’s remaining land. The deed says nothing about access. Can Pat cross Olivia’s land to reach the road?
Yes, by an easement by necessity, because dividing land the two once owned together left Pat’s parcel landlocked. An easement by necessity arises when land once owned by one person is divided and the division leaves one part without access to a public road. Olivia owned both parts, and her sale to Pat landlocked the back half. The law implies an easement across Olivia’s land, which lasts as long as the necessity does.
A plaintiff who is a citizen of New York sues two defendants in federal court for $200,000 on a state-law contract claim. One defendant is a citizen of New Jersey, and the other is a citizen of New York. There’s no federal question. Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
No, because there isn’t complete diversity: the plaintiff and one defendant are both New York citizens. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 needs complete diversity, meaning no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant, plus more than $75,000 in controversy. The amount is fine, but the plaintiff and one defendant are both from New York. With no federal question, the court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.
In a federal case, a defendant files a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denies it. The defendant then files an answer that raises lack of personal jurisdiction for the first time. What should the court do with the personal jurisdiction defense?
Treat it as waived, because the defendant left it out of the first Rule 12 motion. Under Rule 12(h)(1), defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and problems with process or service are waived if a party makes a Rule 12 motion and leaves them out. The defendant filed a 12(b)(6) motion without raising personal jurisdiction, so the defense is gone.
United States · Licensing exam