MBE Simulator Exam 3 — Questions and Answers

Question 1: Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted". In a criminal trial, the prosecution wanted to prove that the defendant lived with his wife at a specified address. During a police search of the premises, the wife stated to officers that the defendant would “never come home while the police are still here.” The prosecution offered that statement into evidence at trial to prove that the defendant lived at that address. The defendant objected to admission of the statement because it was hearsay. Will the court exclude the statement under the hearsay rule?

No , the statement is not hearsay in that it was not offered in order to prove the truth of the assertion. (Correct answer)
Yes, it is excludable hearsay because it was offered to prove the truth of the assertion.
No, the court will permit it because it is an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
Yes, it will be excluded because its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

Correct answer: No , the statement is not hearsay in that it was not offered in order to prove the truth of the assertion.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the wife's statement is not offered to prove that the defendant would *never come home* while police were present. Instead, it is offered as circumstantial evidence to infer that the defendant *lived* at the address, as only someone residing there would likely make such a statement about their home. Since the statement is not offered for its truth, it falls outside the definition of hearsay and is admissible.

Question 2: A husband applied for a life insurance policy for $50,000 on his life, listing his wife as the beneficiary. He paid the insurance company an initial amount of $100 at the time of submitting the application. The agent accepted the down payment, which represented two months of the premium payment. In exchange for this payment, the agent gave the husband a "conditional receipt." A few days later the husband died in an auto accident. The wife as beneficiary demanded payment despite the fact that the insurance company had not officially issued a policy and the husband had not taken a required medical examination required in the wording of the application. The company denied liability, asserting that certain conditions contained in the application and in the conditional receipt (namely the taking of the medical examination) had not been fulfilled by the applicant. The insurer claimed that the condition precedent (the medical examination) was never performed and the contract was not formed. What is the most likely decision of the court?

The conditional receipt stood as the temporary formation of a contract of insurance until the company made a final decision on whether to issue a policy. (Correct answer)
No contract of insurance exists until the insurer is satisfied as to an applicant's acceptability.
There is no such thing as a temporary insurance contract – nothing can exist until the condition precedent is performed.
A contract existed because public policy forbids the requirement of a medical examination for simple term insurance policies under the face amount of $100,000.

Correct answer: The conditional receipt stood as the temporary formation of a contract of insurance until the company made a final decision on whether to issue a policy.

A conditional receipt in life insurance often provides temporary coverage from the date of application, provided the initial premium is paid. This protects the applicant during the underwriting process, even if certain conditions like a medical examination are pending. Courts interpret these receipts to create a temporary contract of insurance, ensuring the insurer does not collect premiums without providing some form of immediate coverage, unless the applicant was clearly uninsurable at the time of application.

Question 3: A seller of residential property told the buyer that he could use his gravel road to the main highway if he purchased the property, which adjoined the seller’s property. Although the property was not otherwise landlocked, the buyer relied on the seller’s promise in making an offer. The buyer had specific uses in mind for improvements that needed the gravel road. The purchase took place but the seller did not include the easement in the deed or the other papers. The buyer built a garage that accessed the gravel road leading to the highway. The seller later decided to fence off the driveway and divert it from buyer’s use. Will a court compel the seller to open up the road and provide an easement to the buyer?

No, because there were other roads to get in and out, and this was not a necessity.
Yes, because this was an easement by estoppel, created by the seller’s promises and relied upon by the buyer. (Correct answer)
Yes, because any road that goes over or next to the buyer’s lot is a part of the buyer’s property, and is considered a prescriptive easement.
No, because the buyer was careless in not putting the agreement in writing at the time of the closing.

Correct answer: Yes, because this was an easement by estoppel, created by the seller’s promises and relied upon by the buyer.

An easement by estoppel arises when a landowner makes a promise or representation regarding the use of their land, and another party reasonably and detrimentally relies on that promise. Here, the seller promised the buyer access to the gravel road, and the buyer relied on this promise by purchasing the property and building a garage that accessed the road. To prevent injustice, the court will enforce this promise as an easement, compelling the seller to honor the access.

Question 4: A state recidivist statute made it a felony punishable by life imprisonment without parole to be convicted for the sixth time of any form of criminal theft involving goods or money in excess of $500. A man’s record showed five prior convictions for different forms of theft, each one for property or cash in excess of $500 but usually not in excess of $1,000. On the sixth conviction for a similar violation, he was sentenced to life without parole. He challenged the sentence based on the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is the Supreme Court likely to invalidate the sentence on these facts?

Yes, because the gravity of the sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes, none of which involved bodily injury. (Correct answer)
Yes, because life imprisonment can never be an appropriate punishment for criminality that does not take human life.
No, because theft and theft by deception are heinous crimes causing extreme human suffering and negatively impacting the economy.
No, because it is improper for the courts to attempt to interject their value judgments into a state’s ostensibly reasonable legislative sentencing schemes.

Correct answer: Yes, because the gravity of the sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes, none of which involved bodily injury.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which includes sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. While recidivist statutes are generally constitutional, a life sentence without parole for non-violent property crimes, even repeated ones, can be deemed unconstitutional if it is disproportionate to the severity of the offenses. The Supreme Court has held that such a severe penalty for crimes that do not involve violence or threat to life may violate the proportionality principle.

Question 5: An industrial truck sales and service center had a wide variety of rigs, trucks and tractors in its multi-acre gated main parking lot. There was a set of keys in each vehicle. The entrance gate was intentionally left open during the day for convenient ingress and egress. A gang member from a nearby gang headquarters walked into the parking lot during work hours, and drove off with a very large state-of-the-art industrial tow truck. He had difficulty managing the gear shifts and other knobs while accelerating, and was so distracted that within a few minutes he ran over and killed an elderly woman in a cross walk. The woman’s estate sued the truck center for negligence. The defendant service center filed a motion to dismiss, in which it asserted that it had no duty to third persons to protect them from truck thieves. It argued that even if it had a duty, the interceding act of the thief was a superseding cause of the accident. Will the court allow the plaintiff’s wrongful death negligence action against the truck center to go forward?

No, because the service center could not foresee that a gang member who didn’t know how to drive an industrial tow truck would take it and kill someone.
No, because the leaving of keys in a vehicle is never considered a foreseeable cause of injury or death from a vehicle thief who does not drive properly.
Yes, because the special circumstances are that the truck was powerful and not commonly drivable by untrained persons; and, it was left unattended, unguarded and accessible to thieves who generally would likely have trouble operating a big rig or a specialized industrial truck. (Correct answer)
Yes, because the service center is strictly liable for any damages to third parties resulting from unauthorized use of one of its trucks.

Correct answer: Yes, because the special circumstances are that the truck was powerful and not commonly drivable by untrained persons; and, it was left unattended, unguarded and accessible to thieves who generally would likely have trouble operating a big rig or a specialized industrial truck.

While a property owner generally isn't liable for the criminal acts of third parties, 'special circumstances' can create a duty of care. Leaving keys in a powerful, specialized industrial tow truck in an accessible, unguarded lot makes it foreseeable that an untrained thief could steal it and cause serious harm due to difficulty operating such a vehicle. This foreseeability establishes a duty on the part of the truck center, and the thief's actions are not considered a superseding cause, allowing the negligence claim to proceed.

Question 6: An elderly woman was vacationing on a cruise ship when she slipped and fell on a slippery substance negligently allowed to build up on a hallway floor. She broke her hip and had to have several operations. The ship's ticket and advertising material used the name Dreamland Cruise Ships. She turned the materials over to her counsel, who filed a lawsuit against Dreamland one month prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Notice was sent to the address listed by Dreamland on the ticket, and received by its agents prior to the expiration of the statute. The attorney later received a letter from a company called Power Cruises, Inc., stating that Dreamland did not exist, was a mere unregistered fictitious name, and that the owner was Power Cruises, Inc. The attorney filed an amended complaint 180 days after the expiration of the limitations period, pursuant to FRCP 15(c), listing the correct name. Power Cruises objected, claiming that the statute of limitation had expired and it did not receive notice with the two-year period. What will the court do and why?

The court will allow the amended complaint to relate back because all of the conditions of Rule 15(c)(1) were met and satisfied. (Correct answer)
The court will not allow the amendment because Dreamland received notice prior to the expiration of the statute but Power Cruise did not receive such notice, as required by Rule 15(c)(1).
The court will not allow the amendment because the new complaint does not arise out of the occurrences alleged in the first complaint, whose allegations were against an unrelated and nonexistent entity.
The court will allow the amendment to be filed under Rule 15(c), but it will, upon motion, dismiss the case due to the fact that it was not served within 120 days after the expiration of the original two-year statute of limitations.

Correct answer: The court will allow the amended complaint to relate back because all of the conditions of Rule 15(c)(1) were met and satisfied.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) allows an amended complaint to change a party's name to relate back to the original filing date if the new party received notice of the action within the period for service and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. Here, 'Dreamland Cruise Ships' was a fictitious name for 'Power Cruises, Inc.,' and Power Cruises received timely notice, thus meeting the requirements for relation back.

Question 7: A state law required that whenever a newspaper prints an editorial criticizing a candidate for office, his character or personal record on the issues, it must provide space for the opposing candidate to reply to the criticisms. A failure to do so is a second-degree misdemeanor. A candidate demanded space for responding to an editorial in a local newspaper that was critical to his character and his candidacy. The newspaper refused to comply. The candidate brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and requesting actual and punitive damages. Based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, what did the court likely decide?

This was a proper attempt to regulate the fairness of speech and give equal time to both sides of an issue so that a slanted opinion would not be perceived as necessarily true.
It was an improper restraint on freedom of speech, which guarantees the right to have a full discussion of the merits of the candidates and their views. (Correct answer)
This is a constitutional statute because the government has a duty to assure that a wide variety of views reach the public.
This was an unconstitutional statute because by allowing a response, the statute was favoring the criticized candidate and setting up a silent endorsement of that candidate.

Correct answer: It was an improper restraint on freedom of speech, which guarantees the right to have a full discussion of the merits of the candidates and their views.

The Supreme Court, in *Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo*, held that a state statute requiring newspapers to provide space for political candidates to reply to criticisms unconstitutionally infringes on the freedom of the press. Such a law compels speech and interferes with the newspaper's editorial judgment and control over its content. The First Amendment protects the editorial autonomy of the press, preventing the government from dictating what must be published.

Question 8: A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examiner. Rule 611 (c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence generally prohibits the use of leading questions on direct examination. There are, however, some exceptions to that rule. Which of the following would be a permissible instance of using leading questions on direct examination?

When the direct examination is conducted during a videotaped depositions of a witness.
When the witness being examined on direct is an adverse party or a hostile witness. (Correct answer)
When counsel is attempting to rehabilitate the testimony of the witness on re-direct examination.
When both counsel stipulate that they’ll not object to any leading questions during the trial.

Correct answer: When the witness being examined on direct is an adverse party or a hostile witness.

Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) generally prohibits leading questions on direct examination, but it provides specific exceptions. One key exception allows leading questions when the witness being examined is an adverse party, a hostile witness, or a witness identified with an adverse party. This is because such witnesses are unlikely to be cooperative or susceptible to the examiner's suggestions, making leading questions necessary to elicit relevant testimony.

Question 9: A regular customer left his car at an auto mechanic’s shop with instructions to: check the engine and tune it up; make sure the brakes were all in good working order; examine the tires; and, to otherwise check and repair all major systems because the customer was going on a long driving tour through other states. No discussion of price or words of agreement were spoken between the parties. When the customer picked up the car, there was a bill for $5,000 left on the seat to his attention. All of the services and parts listed pertained to the areas stated in the customer’s instructions. He refused to pay, claiming that there was no agreement and that the mechanic didn’t get advance approval for all of the repairs. Can he be held responsible for contractual service performed?

Despite the instructions, it was implied-in-fact that the mechanic would have to get permission to make any actual repairs or perform any significant work.
There was an implied-in-law contract between the parties that required payment by the customer.
There was no agreement between the parties due to indefiniteness and absence of detailed terms.
There was an implied-in-fact contract that required the customer’s payment for the services and parts. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: There was an implied-in-fact contract that required the customer’s payment for the services and parts.

An implied-in-fact contract arises from the conduct of the parties, demonstrating a mutual agreement and intent to contract, even without express words. Here, the customer specifically instructed the mechanic to perform detailed services, and the mechanic completed those services. The customer's actions of leaving the car with instructions, and the mechanic's performance, clearly indicate an understanding that the services would be paid for at a reasonable price, forming an enforceable contract.

Question 10: A man conveyed a large parcel of land to a friend. The deed stated that it was to “my friend as long as he uses the property to grow organic vegetables that are not genetically manipulated, and if that proper use is not maintained, the property will immediately revert to the grantor.” 11 years later, the friend was charged with using genetic engineering techniques in violation of the regulations of the state’s agricultural department. What kind of an interest, if any, did the grantor retain by the wording in the deed?

He retains a fee simple absolute.
He retains a possibility of reverter. (Correct answer)
He retains a life estate.
He retains an estate for years.

Correct answer: He retains a possibility of reverter.

The grantor retained a possibility of reverter, which is a future interest that automatically reverts ownership to the grantor if a specified condition in a fee simple determinable is violated. The language 'as long as he uses the property... and if that proper use is not maintained, the property will immediately revert to the grantor' clearly creates a fee simple determinable. Upon the friend's failure to maintain the specified use, the property automatically reverts to the grantor without any action required by the grantor.

Question 11: The manager of a franchise restaurant had authority to deposit the cash earnings in the bank each day. She also had the authority to sign checks under $500 without a co-signature. Over a three-year period she skimmed about $100,000 in cash from the cash deposits and from the checking account by writing cash withdrawals to herself a few times each month. A new management firm took over and audited the books, finding the irregularities. They reported the matter to the police, and after questioning the manager admitted to her skimming of the account. The police had evidence to arrest her for which of the following?

Larceny
Theft by deception
Burglary
Embezzlement (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Embezzlement

Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted. The manager had lawful possession and control over the company's cash and checking account funds due to her position. Her act of secretly taking these funds for her personal use, rather than using them for the company's benefit, constitutes embezzlement because she converted property that was rightfully entrusted to her care.

Question 12: A female condominium owner was concerned about security lighting in the large condo complex at night, and more particularly, about the lack of lighting in and around the entrances to the units, including her unit. There had been numerous prior robberies and rapes reported by condo owners in the past several years. She demanded that the homeowners’ association install security measures, including lights and security patrols, to protect the residents. The association took it under advisement but ultimately voted to take no action. She installed her own lighting system and the association demanded that she take it down or suffer costs and penalties, because only the association could control the common areas and how they looked and were lighted. She complied, and shortly thereafter she was robbed and brutally raped one evening as she entered the dark, deserted contours of her front hallway after unlocking her front door. She sued the homeowners’ association for negligence. The association countered that it had no duty to the owner, and that it was not similar to a for-profit landlord who did owe a duty for the security of common areas. The trial court dismissed the complaint as failing to state a claim and she appealed. Will the appellate court recognize that the association had a duty to use due care to protect the homeowners?

Yes, the association has a duty similar to a landlord because under the operating rules of the association, it had the responsibility for security, lighting, maintenance and improvements in all common areas. (Correct answer)
Yes, the association is strictly liable for damages caused by its failure to provide minimum safety measures for the protection of all homeowners.
No, the association has no duty to protect the homeowners from danger or to provide any kind of security in the common areas.
No, the association is not similar to a landlord in function or responsibilities owed for the common areas of the complex.

Correct answer: Yes, the association has a duty similar to a landlord because under the operating rules of the association, it had the responsibility for security, lighting, maintenance and improvements in all common areas.

Homeowners' associations, like landlords, generally owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain common areas in a safe condition for residents, especially when their governing documents grant them control and responsibility over security, lighting, and maintenance. Given the history of prior robberies and rapes in the complex, and the association's control over common area security, it was foreseeable that a lack of security measures could lead to harm. This establishes a duty to protect the homeowners.

Question 13: A former regional manager of a life insurance company sued the parent company for terminating him without cause. He asked the attorney to make sure that he got a jury trial. If a proper demand is not made, the trial will be presided over by the judge without a jury. At the last pretrial conference, well after discovery had closed, the attorney filed for a jury trial. Did the attorney properly preserve the right to jury trial and why or why not? Yes, the plaintiff does not have to ask for a jury trial until the discovery is completed and the last pretrial conference is held.

Yes, the plaintiff does not have to ask for a jury trial until the discovery is completed and the last pretrial conference is held.
No, the plaintiff can best assure a jury trial by including the demand in the complaint under Rule 38(b)(1). The right can also be assured at later times under the Rule but not as late as after the completion of discovery. (Correct answer)
Yes, the plaintiff may make a jury trial demand up until the last pretrial conference before trial is scheduled.
No, the plaintiff must notify the defendant of a jury trial demand in the summons that is served with the complaint. Otherwise, the court will set the matter as a non-jury trial.

Correct answer: No, the plaintiff can best assure a jury trial by including the demand in the complaint under Rule 38(b)(1). The right can also be assured at later times under the Rule but not as late as after the completion of discovery.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) requires a party to demand a jury trial no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served. Failure to make a timely demand constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury trial. Filing for a jury trial at the last pretrial conference, well after discovery has closed, is almost certainly beyond this 14-day deadline, making the demand untimely and the right waived.

Question 14: A law student and two friends were at a mall peacefully handing out fliers protesting the country’s military involvement in a Middle Eastern country. The mall owner called the police, who warned them to stop or they would be arrested. They returned the next day and continued to leaflet. The police came again and issued another warning. The law student left to avoid arrest, but his friends stayed and were arrested for criminal trespass and loitering. The law student, in an attempt to get an advance ruling on the constitutionality of the criminal ordinances and propriety of police actions, filed an action in federal court asking for declaratory relief. Based on Supreme Court precedent, how should the federal district court rule?

The declaratory relief would interfere with existing state prosecutions and would therefore be disallowed for reasons of equity and comity
With no pending prosecution, a federal plaintiff may seek a declaratory judgment that a state statute would be unconstitutionally applied against him in a threatened future prosecution. (Correct answer)
There is no pending prosecution, which means that there is no actual case or controversy to which the declaratory relief could apply.
The declaratory relief would be premature because the law student’s fears of a future arrest are entirely speculative on his part.

Correct answer: With no pending prosecution, a federal plaintiff may seek a declaratory judgment that a state statute would be unconstitutionally applied against him in a threatened future prosecution.

In *Steffel v. Thompson*, the Supreme Court held that a federal plaintiff may seek a declaratory judgment that a state statute is unconstitutional as applied to them, even without a pending state prosecution, if there is a credible threat of future prosecution. Here, the law student was warned by police and his friends were arrested, creating a concrete and credible threat of future arrest for exercising his First Amendment rights. This establishes a live case or controversy suitable for declaratory relief.

Question 15: A small business owner was sued for breach of contract. In his answer, he claimed that he acted upon advice of his prior counsel to return the truckload of widgets that were delivered by the plaintiff company. He later repeated that contention in a deposition but refused to elaborate on the details because of the attorney-client privilege. At trial, the plaintiff company called the business owner’s prior attorney to question him on what advice he gave his client regarding the shipment and refusing to perform on the contract. The business owner objected on the basis that the conversations with his former lawyer were privileged. What is the most likely decision of the trial court regarding the objection to the evidence?

The testimony must be admitted because the business owner’s answer raised the advice of former counsel and thus placed the subject matter of that advice in issue; that is a waiver of the privilege (Correct answer)
The testimony will be precluded because the privilege with respect to confidential communications to former counsel remained in effect and could not be waived in a pleading.
The privilege has been waived in the sense that when a party changes counsel, all privileged communications with prior counsel are no longer protected.
The privilege still stands and the testimony will be precluded because the raising of the defense in the answer is in itself privileged and not subject to further revelation.

Correct answer: The testimony must be admitted because the business owner’s answer raised the advice of former counsel and thus placed the subject matter of that advice in issue; that is a waiver of the privilege

The attorney-client privilege can be waived when a party puts the privileged communication 'at issue' in litigation. By asserting in his answer and deposition that he acted upon the advice of his prior counsel, the business owner made that advice central to his defense. He cannot use the advice as a justification for his actions while simultaneously invoking the privilege to prevent the opposing party from examining the details of that advice. This constitutes an implied waiver of the privilege.

Question 16: A drywall subcontractor submitted an offer to a general contractor for proposed drywall work on a small office building being constructed. The bid was for $20,000 for all drywall supplies and labor. The contractor factored the experienced subcontractor’s bid into its final bid and was awarded the contract. A few days later the subcontractor informed the contractor that it had worked on the figures and realized that it underestimated the cost of the project. The subcontractor refused to do the job for less than $35,000. The contractor hired another subcontractor to do the work for $30,000 and sued the first subcontractor for the $10,000 difference over the original bid of $20,000. Will the court likely award the $10,000 to the contractor and against the first subcontractor?

Yes, because the contractor had reasonably relied on the subcontractor’s offer when making its bid, and it suffered a detriment that can only be avoided by enforcement of that offer. (Correct answer)
No, because the contractor had no right to rely on an initial bid of a subcontractor in computing general contractor bid because it knew that such bids would be subject to change with time.
No, because in the law of contracts an offer can be revoked or modified at any time that substantial changes are required by circumstances and prior to the acceptance of the offer.
Yes, because the contractor accepted the offer of $20,000 before it was revoked, making the subcontractor legally bound to his offer.

Correct answer: Yes, because the contractor had reasonably relied on the subcontractor’s offer when making its bid, and it suffered a detriment that can only be avoided by enforcement of that offer.

This scenario is a classic application of promissory estoppel in construction bidding. While a subcontractor's bid is typically an offer that can be revoked before acceptance, courts often apply promissory estoppel when a general contractor reasonably relies on that bid to formulate and submit its own master bid. The general contractor's detrimental reliance makes the subcontractor's offer effectively irrevocable, and the subcontractor is liable for the difference in cost incurred by the general contractor.

Question 17: A married couple own a residential premises. They received a foreclosure action from the first mortgage lender in a state that has judicial foreclosure procedures. The state also statutorily extends the right of redemption both prior to the sale, and for a period of one year after the sale. The sale took place; the property was sold to the lender. The lender then filed a deficiency judgment action. The couple received a loan from family members about six months after the sale. It was sufficient to pay the balance on the mortgage plus interest and costs. The couple notified the lender and the court of their intent to exercise their right of redemption. What is the likely outcome?

The couple will exercise their right of redemption to retain ownership of their property. (Correct answer)
The court will order the couple evicted because they should have acted prior to the entry of the deficiency judgment.
A hearing must first be held to determine whether abatement has occurred.
The court ruled that the lender did not have a right to file a deficiency judgment, and it ordered the foreclosure action null and void without the couple having to exercise the right of redemption.

Correct answer: The couple will exercise their right of redemption to retain ownership of their property.

A statutory right of redemption allows a mortgagor to reclaim their property after a foreclosure sale by paying the full amount of the debt, plus interest and costs, within a specified period. The question explicitly states that the state law extends this right for one year after the sale. Since the couple obtained the necessary funds and notified their intent to redeem within six months, they are well within the statutory period and can exercise their right to regain ownership.

Question 18: Two women, a cashier and an accountant, worked closely together in the accounting department of a large retailer. Both were defrauding the company by separate schemes. The cashier was issuing checks to certain persons and then splitting the proceeds with them. The accountant was making certain expense vouchers that she would issue to persons not entitled to reimbursement, and then she would share the proceeds with them. Both women assisted each other in the making and processing their respective checks and vouchers each month, but each believed that the other’s documents were legal. When things started to unwind, the police discovered both plots and arrested both women for criminal fraud and theft. They also arrested the women for a felony conspiracy to act together in defrauding their company. They both defended against the conspiracy charge. What is the likely outcome of their defense of the conspiracy charge?

The conspiracy charge will be dismissed because they can’t be punished for the completed crime and the conspiracy at the same time.
The conspiracy charge is valid because they don’t have to know what the other is doing to have a conspiracy.
The conspiracy is valid because both individuals defrauded their employer out of funds and they helped each other further their respective crimes.
The conspiracy will be dismissed because they had no agreement to further a crime together; rather each thought that the other’s activities were legal. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: The conspiracy will be dismissed because they had no agreement to further a crime together; rather each thought that the other’s activities were legal.

A criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, along with the specific intent to achieve that objective. Here, while both women were committing separate crimes, they each believed the other's activities were legal and had no mutual agreement or shared criminal intent to defraud the company *together*. Without this 'meeting of the minds' to commit a crime jointly, a conspiracy cannot be established.

Question 19: A motorist was in a fierce head-on collision with another vehicle at an intersection. The other driver was negligent and caused the collision. The motorist sustained a fractured back along with a severe head injury that caused her to have brain damage and paraplegia. She was adjudicated incompetent and placed in a nursing home. A guardian was appointed who sued the other driver and the manufacturer of the motorist’s automobile. The other driver settled early for policy limits of $100,000. The case then went to trial against the auto maker. The claim was for strict liability in tort charging that the seats, dash and assist grip installed in the vehicle were defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous and caused the plaintiff enhanced injuries. The manufacturer claimed that it did not cause the accident and that it was not the cause of any enhanced injuries. It argued that the plaintiff had to prove precisely what injuries he sustained that were caused by the manufacturer. Based on the traditional Restatement rule, what is the causation standard that the court will instruct the jury to use in its decision?

He must prove what additional injuries were solely caused by the alleged design defects.
He must prove the nature and extent of the enhanced injuries and show how the defects caused each additional injury.
The plaintiff must prove that the auto maker’s defective product was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s injuries. (Correct answer)
The plaintiff must select which tortfeasor he wants to proceed against because it is not scientifically possible to divide the fault fairly between the two.

Correct answer: The plaintiff must prove that the auto maker’s defective product was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s injuries.

In 'crashworthiness' or 'enhanced injury' cases, where a vehicle defect exacerbates injuries from an initial collision, the plaintiff must prove that the defect was a 'substantial factor' in causing the enhanced injuries. The burden then shifts to the defendant manufacturer to apportion the damages between the initial collision and the enhanced injuries caused by the defect. The plaintiff is not required to prove precisely which injuries were solely caused by the defect.

Question 20: In a case for sexual harassment, the jury entered a monetary verdict in favor of the plaintiff. She alleged that her supervisor persistently demanded sexual favors in return for promotions, that he had sent her lascivious text messages and semi-nude photos of himself on several occasions. Her complaints were ignored by the employer. The jury believed the plaintiff and returned a verdict for her. The defendants, i.e., the supervisor and the employer company, filed a motion under Rule 59(a) asking for a new trial. Without alleging specifics, the defendants asked the court to recognize that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Under these facts, which of the following is the most likely decision and reasoning of the court?

The motion will be rejected because there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and the movants alleged only conclusions. (Correct answer)
The motion will be granted because it specifically demonstrates that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The motion will be granted because the plaintiff's testimony was insufficient evidence in itself to support the verdict.
The motion will be denied because the defendants cannot get a new trial unless they prove that the plaintiff was lying about what happened.

Correct answer: The motion will be rejected because there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and the movants alleged only conclusions.

A motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a) based on the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence is granted only if the verdict is seriously erroneous or a miscarriage of justice. The court will not overturn a jury's verdict merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. Here, the plaintiff's testimony, which the jury found credible, provided sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and the defendants' motion lacked specific arguments to demonstrate a clear error.

Question 21: A group of women employed by a state government recently sued the state under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis of allowing the creation of a hostile work environment against them. An amendment to that act extends coverage to the states as employers. The federal district court allowed an injunction to prevent further discrimination but refused to allow money damages and legal fees against the state on the basis of 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. The plaintiffs appealed. What should the Court of Appeals decide based on the established jurisprudence regarding sovereign immunity?

There is no sovereign immunity due to the First Amendment rights of the women to protest against discrimination.
There is sovereign immunity that protects a state from any lawsuit by private citizens that the state does not authorize.
There is no sovereign immunity where the federal law provides a remedy to women in a civil rights law intended to apply the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement rights against the states. (Correct answer)
There is sovereign immunity under the Supremacy Clause and it would take a new constitutional amendment to abrogate the immunity granted to the states.

Correct answer: There is no sovereign immunity where the federal law provides a remedy to women in a civil rights law intended to apply the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement rights against the states.

Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment when it acts pursuant to its enforcement powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Title VII, as amended to apply to states, is considered valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation designed to prevent discrimination. Therefore, states can be sued for money damages under Title VII, as established by Supreme Court precedent in cases like *Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer*, overriding sovereign immunity.

Question 22: A woman asked a male friend to hold her valuable antique jewelry in safe storage for her while she traveled in a foreign country. He owned a jewelry store and graciously offered to store the collection for free. He also volunteered to get the jewelry insured at his own expense. She relied on the promises, and turned over the collection to him without the payment of monetary consideration. He forgot to get the jewelry insured, and the collection was stolen in an armed robbery of the jewelry store. When she returned, he refused to compensate her for the stolen collection. Which one of the following legal principles would be her strongest and most accurate claim for remuneration under these facts?

The principle of unilateral contract.
The principle of equitable trust.
The principle of natural consideration.
The principle of promissory estoppel. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: The principle of promissory estoppel.

Promissory estoppel applies when a clear and unambiguous promise is made, the promisee reasonably and foreseeably relies on that promise, and suffers a detriment as a result. Here, the friend made a clear promise to insure the jewelry, the woman reasonably relied by entrusting him with the valuable collection and not seeking other insurance, and she suffered a significant loss when the jewelry was stolen uninsured. This principle allows the court to enforce the promise despite the absence of traditional consideration.

Question 23: Defendants agreed to lease to plaintiffs a building that they were going to build. The lease was for a period of 10 years. The lease of the building was to commence upon the “completion of the building.” The defendants were bound in the agreement to start “forthwith” and proceed to build the building “expeditiously” after receiving all permits, and to complete the project in a reasonable time. Plaintiffs put $10,000 down on the rental agreement. Plaintiffs and defendants started arguing about other terms, such as who was to pay for an expensive sprinkler system. Eventually, plaintiffs sued for rescission and for return of the down payment. One of the main contentions of the plaintiffs was that the agreement violated the rule against perpetuities in that it was impossible to tell whether it could be performed within 21 years due to the ambiguity over when the building would be completed. What is the likely decision of the court?

The court would favor enforcement of the rule, and would interpret all of the contingencies involved to be so speculative that it could not be said that the building would be completed within 21 years.
The rule against perpetuities does not apply to leases and therefore the agreement is enforceable.
The rule must be applied very strictly in commercial transactions to make sure that the performance is not intentionally delayed beyond reason.
The court would favor an interpretation that does not unduly interfere with commercial transactions, and here it appears that the building will easily be completed within 21 years. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: The court would favor an interpretation that does not unduly interfere with commercial transactions, and here it appears that the building will easily be completed within 21 years.

The Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) prevents property interests from being tied up indefinitely, but courts are generally reluctant to apply it to commercial transactions like leases, especially when the parties' intent is clear and performance is likely within a reasonable timeframe. Courts will typically interpret such agreements to imply that completion must occur within a reasonable time, which is almost always less than 21 years, thereby avoiding a RAP violation and upholding the commercial agreement.

Question 24: A man wearing a jacket and jeans walked along a city street at night in a high crime area known for drug trafficking and gun violence. He saw two police officers walking toward him. The officers were checking on a 911 call from a resident who observed a man in jeans and a jacket apparently selling drugs to people on the street. When the police first saw him, he was walking alone, in the area that the woman identified. As they approached, he suddenly crossed the street by jaywalking. They followed, and approaching from behind, asked him to stop. He started walking faster, away from them. The officers saw what appeared to be a heavy object bulging in his pocket as he moved. The officers, with over 10 years of foot patrol experience, stepped up and stopped him. They patted him down and found a concealed, unlicensed handgun in the jacket pocket. They then made a full search and found 50 packets of heroin. He filed a motion to suppress the gun and drug evidence. Will the court likely suppress the evidence?

No, because the accumulation of factors all added up to reasonable suspicion for a stop and articulable suspicion for a frisk. (Correct answer)
No, because the police had probable cause to make an arrest when the man began to walk away from them and walk even faster as they followed him.
Yes, because they didn’t know if this was the same man, they observed nothing illegal except jaywalking, and he had a right to avoid them under the circumstances.
Yes, because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the man simply because he crossed the street and walked faster away from them.

Correct answer: No, because the accumulation of factors all added up to reasonable suspicion for a stop and articulable suspicion for a frisk.

A *Terry* stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the person is armed and dangerous. Here, the combination of the 911 call describing a man matching the description in a high-crime drug area, the man's evasive behavior (jaywalking and walking faster away from officers), and the visible bulge in his pocket, collectively created reasonable suspicion for the stop. The bulge, coupled with the context, provided articulable suspicion to justify the pat-down for weapons.

Question 25: Three seven-year-old boys crawled through a hole in a fence at the end of a school playground, and entered an active railroad switching yard. They climbed on top of a freight car and one of them was electrocuted by a high voltage wire. The fence they crawled through was owned and maintained by the local school district, which owned the playground. The rail yard was owned by the Penn Central Co. The deceased boy’s father brought a wrongful death action against both the city and the railroad company. There were several holes in the fence that were used by kids to come and go from the railroad yard. There were four prior incidents at the railroad yard where young children were electrocuted or seriously injured by high-tension wires. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss as a matter of law because the children were trespassers to whom they asserted that they owed no duty of care. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim against both defendants. An appeal was filed. Will the appellate court affirm the dismissal?

Yes, the court will affirm as to the railroad which had no duty to trespassers on its land, but will reverse as to the school district, because the children were not trespassing on the playground.
Yes, the court will affirm the dismissal against both defendants because neither of them owed any duty to children trespassing on the land.
No, the court will reverse because it was foreseeable that children would come on the land and be exposed to a dangerous condition, triggering a duty to protect them. (Correct answer)
No, the court will reverse and enter judgment against the defendants for failing to use protective measures under the doctrine of absolute liability to protect the children.

Correct answer: No, the court will reverse because it was foreseeable that children would come on the land and be exposed to a dangerous condition, triggering a duty to protect them.

The attractive nuisance doctrine creates an exception to the general rule that landowners owe no duty to trespassers, particularly for child trespassers. It applies when a landowner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass on a property containing an artificial condition that poses an unreasonable risk of harm, and the children, due to their youth, cannot appreciate the danger. Given the multiple holes in the fence, prior incidents, and the inherent danger of high-tension wires, it was foreseeable that children would trespass and be harmed, triggering a duty for both defendants.

MBE Simulator Exam 3

Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted".
In a criminal trial, the prosecution wanted to prove that the defendant lived with his wife at a specified address.
During a police search of the premises, the wife stated to officers that the defendant would “never come home while the police are still here.” The prosecution offered that statement into evidence at trial to prove that the defendant lived at that address.
The defendant objected to admission of the statement because it was hearsay.
Will the court exclude the statement under the hearsay rule?