FREE Doctor of Jurisprudence Questions and Answers
A contract was signed by a seller to transfer Blackacre to a buyer. The buyer was ready to perform on May 1, but the seller was not, even though the contract indicated that the closing had to take place ""on May 1."" The seller was prepared to close on Blackacre on June 1. The buyer alleges that the seller has broken the contract and does not want to proceed with the closing.
Does the buyer have to complete the closing?
Even though a closing date is stated in a real estate contract, it may not be absolutely enforceable. Only if it is made obvious that time is of the essence in the contract or by the parties' behavior, will the date specified in the agreement be binding. Courts will let the closing to take place within a reasonable amount of time if timing is not of the essence.
In a legal case for the conversion of her car, the plaintiff is seeking to present evidence that the defendant approached her at her place of employment after her car vanished and claimed, ""I just stole your car. How does being stranded feel?The entire exchange was captured on camera by the company's security system. Regarding the plaintiff's testimony regarding his statement, the respondent objects.
Is the plaintiff's testimony about the comment made by the defendant admissible?
If a statement comes from the other side, it is not hearsay. This statement was made by the opposing side, thus hearsay rules against it being allowed into evidence do not apply.
Testator's son, a 70-year-old widower, had one unmarried adult son and one unmarried adult daughter. Testator designed his home "to my son for life, then to my son's children and their heirs."
The court will decide that the following is the appropriate course of action to interpret the words of the will:
The son's life estate is a current interest. Future interests are what the son's children received as a gift. Due to the fact that it comes after a life estate, the gift to the son's children is a remnant. Note that the children are not named, making the present a class gift. The class is remains available as long as the son is alive (plus nine months). Remainders almost invariably follow a life estate on an MBE. It is unclear if the children will get a vested or contingent portion of the estate.
If the grantee can be identified and the remainder is assured to transfer ownership, it is said to have ""vested"" in the grantor. A residual is ""vested subject to partial divestment"" if it is a class gift in which one or more grantees are certain to accept the gift but may be required to divide it with other grantees. A residual is ""contingent"" if the recipient is (mnemonic = ""UUU"") unborn, uncertain, or unlikely to accept because to a preceding condition.
In this instance, the son's children are verified to be alive and there is no requirement that they accept the gift. It has a vested interest as a result. Is it liable for divestiture? Yes, since the son might theoretically still have additional children even if he is 70 years old and single. The son's daughter and son will receive a piece of the stake, but a subsequent child may divest them of some of their interest. In other words, the amount the son and daughter receive may change if more children are born. The children's vested residual is therefore subject to partial divestiture.
A man was attending a neighborhood get-together at his neighbor's home. The neighbor's new garden hose caught the man's attention. The man remembered that he needed to water his plants when he saw the garden hose. While the neighbor was having visitors over, the man made the decision to utilize the garden hose. In his backyard, the man extended the garden hose and started watering the plants. The garden hose, however, was stretched too thinly, split in half, and was irreparably damaged.
Will the neighbor win if they file a lawsuit for damages?
Only if the man committed the tort of conversion or trespass to damages will the neighbor be able to claim damages. When the defendant severely infringes against another's right to their personal property—for instance, by taking or destroying the chattel—conversion is present. Trespass to chattels occurs when the defendant momentarily impairs another's right to their personal property (e.g., by damaging it or robbing the owner of it).
The plaintiff calls a witness to testify on her behalf in a civil battery lawsuit where the defendant was accused of tripping the plaintiff as she descended the stairs. The testimony of the plaintiff is verified by the witness.
The defendant's attorney then asks the witness during cross-examination, "Isn't it true that you tried to glance at your notes during the CPA exam last year in order to cheat?" The plaintiff's attorney raises an objection to the inquiry.
How should the court decide in regards to the objection?
If you have trouble answering, inquire as to the purpose for which the evidence is being presented. The attorney is presenting a previous negative deed of lying here. In other words, if the witness truly did cheat on her CPA exam, she must not be that believable of a person, and the jury definitely shouldn't believe her. It is being given to undermine the witness's credibility and undermine her evidence. This kind of impeachment is acceptable. (Note that the defense attorney for the defendant would have to accept the witness' response if they answered, "No, that is not true," and they could not introduce the test into evidence.)
A man made the decision to break into a property since he knew the owner had a sizable collection of expensive jewelry. The man smashed the latch on the door and entered during the day when he believed the owner was at work. He could hear footsteps upstairs, where the owner was actually located. When the man noticed a necklace lying on a coffee table, he grabbed it out of nervousness. The man busted a window in a hurry as soon as he heard the owner start to descend the stairs. In fact, the owner had just begun making his way downstairs when the man arrived, and he saw him taking the necklace and breaking the glass.The owner was extremely alarmed by the latter behavior, and the police were contacted.
What crime(s) might the man have committed under common law?
Burglary is the act of breaking and entering a person's home at night with the intent to commit a felony or larceny there. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of another person's personal property with the intent to permanently deprive him thereof. Robbery is a larceny plus the additional elements of taking from the other person or presence while using force or threat of force.
The individual snatched the homeowner's necklace and fled with it, committing a trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the aim to permanently deprive him thereof. There is no sign that he just meant to take the jewelry or return it. The components of robbery are not met, though. Although there was a larceny and the necklace was taken while the owner was present, no force was applied to seize the item. It was just taken up off the coffee table by the man. He did break the window with force, but not in order to get the jewelry. The man was so terrified at the sound that he busted a window to leave without ever even seeing the owner. The owner was not threatened in any way in order to take the necklace.
After his fiancée vanished, a man was escorted to a police station to be questioned. No Miranda warnings were issued to the man. After being questioned by a police officer for a short while, the man confessed to killing his fiancée and said that he discarded the gun he used to shoot her in a swamp several miles outside of the city. The cops spent several weeks conducting a thorough search of the marsh before discovering the gun. Murder in the first degree is the man's alleged crime. The gun will be used as evidence against the individual at trial by the prosecutor.
The man makes a case for suppressing the gun throughout the trial. Will he succeed?
According to the Fifth Amendment, the man should have received Miranda warnings as soon as the custodial interrogation began; however, in this case, the man was not given warnings despite the fact that he was in custody and being questioned, which violated the man's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, (assuming there is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause), a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
He had not yet been legally charged with a crime, so the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached. As a result, there was no violation of that right.
There is no evidence that the interrogation was forced, hence the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has not been violated. According to the fact pattern, he provided the police officer with the location of the pistol after only a short period of interrogation. (Note: Neither the confession nor the gun would be allowed if the Fourteenth Amendment was broken.)
There was no illegal search or seizure in this case; rather, the confession was obtained illegally. (Remember that the exclusionary rule applies when the Fourth Amendment is violated, but it does not apply to ""physical fruits"" when the Fifth Amendment is violated.)""