GA Bar Multistate Bar 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which of the following governmental actions is most likely to be upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power?
- A federal law banning all discrimination in privately owned public accommodations.
- A federal law regulating the price of milk sold across state lines. (Correct answer)
- A federal law requiring states to provide free public transportation to all residents.
- A federal law regulating the possession of firearms in school zones.
Correct answer: A federal law regulating the price of milk sold across state lines.
A federal law regulating the price of milk sold across state lines is a classic example of a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes activities that have a substantial effect on commerce among the states. Regulating prices for goods moving in interstate commerce directly falls within this power, as it addresses economic activity with clear interstate implications.
Question 2: In a contract for the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which of the following statements is true regarding an “open price” term?
- The contract is void if the price is not specified.
- The price is determined by the market value at the time of delivery.
- The price is fixed by the seller at the time of performance.
- The price is determined by a reasonable price at the time of delivery. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The price is determined by a reasonable price at the time of delivery.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), if a contract for the sale of goods leaves the price term open, the contract is still valid and enforceable. In such cases, the UCC provides that the price will be a "reasonable price at the time for delivery." This provision prevents contracts from failing due to minor omissions and ensures commercial transactions can proceed even without a precisely stated price.
Question 3: Which of the following scenarios would most likely constitute the crime of "attempt" under criminal law?
- A person buys ingredients for making a bomb but never assembles it.
- A person starts a fight with another person but is stopped before any physical contact occurs.
- A person plans to rob a bank but is arrested before entering the bank.
- A person sets a fire intending to burn down a house but the fire is extinguished before any damage occurs. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: A person sets a fire intending to burn down a house but the fire is extinguished before any damage occurs.
The crime of "attempt" requires both the specific intent to commit a crime and a substantial step towards its commission, beyond mere preparation. In this scenario, setting a fire with the intent to burn down a house constitutes a substantial step, even if the ultimate crime (arson) is not completed due to the fire being extinguished. The act of setting the fire demonstrates a clear overt act moving beyond preparation and towards the commission of the intended felony.
Question 4: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which of the following statements best describes the hearsay rule?
- Hearsay is always admissible if the witness testifies to what they heard from another person.
- Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under a specific exception. (Correct answer)
- Hearsay is admissible if it is offered to show the truth of the matter asserted.
- Hearsay is admissible if the statement is made by a party to the case.
Correct answer: Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under a specific exception.
The Federal Rules of Evidence establish that hearsay, defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally inadmissible. This rule exists because such statements lack the reliability of in-court testimony, which is subject to cross-examination. However, the rules also provide numerous specific exceptions, such as excited utterances or business records, that allow certain trustworthy hearsay statements to be admitted into evidence.
Question 5: Under the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur," which of the following must be proven for a plaintiff to succeed in a negligence claim?
- The defendant was negligent in their actions.
- The harm would not have occurred without the defendant’s direct actions.
- The harm was caused by an event that ordinarily does not occur without negligence. (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff was aware of the defendant's negligent actions.
Correct answer: The harm was caused by an event that ordinarily does not occur without negligence.
The doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) allows a jury to infer negligence even without direct evidence of the defendant's actions. For this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must prove that the harm was caused by an event that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. Additionally, the instrumentality causing the harm must have been within the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff must not have contributed to their own injury, shifting the burden to the defendant to explain the incident.
GA Bar Multistate Bar 1
Which of the following governmental actions is most likely to be upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power?