MD Bar Multistate Bar 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A tenant with two years left on a lease transfers "all of my remaining interest" in the leasehold to a friend. The friend fails to pay rent. Can the landlord recover rent directly from the friend?
- Yes, because an assignment puts the assignee in privity of estate with the landlord (Correct answer)
- No, because the friend never signed the lease
- No, because only the original tenant remains liable
- Yes, but only if the landlord consented to the transfer
Correct answer: Yes, because an assignment puts the assignee in privity of estate with the landlord
Transferring the entire remaining term is an assignment, creating privity of estate that makes the assignee liable for rent.
Question 2: In a civil fraud trial, the plaintiff offers a properly authenticated email from the defendant stating, "I knew the reports were false." The defendant objects on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?
- Admit it as a statement of an opposing party (Correct answer)
- Exclude it as hearsay without an exception
- Admit it only as a prior inconsistent statement
- Exclude it under the best evidence rule
Correct answer: Admit it as a statement of an opposing party
A party's own statement offered against that party is excluded from the hearsay definition under FRE 801(d)(2).
Question 3: A general contractor solicits bids from subcontractors and uses a plumber's low bid in its winning master bid. The plumber then tries to revoke before the contractor accepts. Is the plumber bound?
- Yes, promissory estoppel makes the bid irrevocable for a reasonable time (Correct answer)
- No, because an offer is always revocable before acceptance
- No, because there was no consideration for keeping the bid open
- Yes, because using the bid constituted acceptance
Correct answer: Yes, promissory estoppel makes the bid irrevocable for a reasonable time
Under Drennan, foreseeable reliance on a subcontractor's bid makes it temporarily irrevocable through promissory estoppel.
Question 4: A defendant properly removes a diversity case from state to federal court. The plaintiff then amends to drop damages below $75,000. What should the federal court do?
- Retain the case, because jurisdiction is assessed at the time of removal (Correct answer)
- Remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- Dismiss the case with prejudice
- Transfer the case back only if the defendant consents
Correct answer: Retain the case, because jurisdiction is assessed at the time of removal
The amount in controversy is measured at removal, and later amendments reducing damages do not defeat jurisdiction.
Question 5: Congress passes a statute stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to a specific pending case and directing the outcome. The statute is most vulnerable because it violates what principle?
- Separation of powers, because Congress may not dictate the result in a pending case (Correct answer)
- The Tenth Amendment
- The Contracts Clause
- The Ex Post Facto Clause
Correct answer: Separation of powers, because Congress may not dictate the result in a pending case
Under United States v. Klein, Congress cannot prescribe the rule of decision in a pending case in a way that directs the judiciary's outcome.
Question 6: A surgeon operates on the wrong knee of an anesthetized patient. The operation is performed skillfully. In the patient's battery action, what is the most likely result?
- The patient wins, because the touching exceeded the scope of consent (Correct answer)
- The surgeon wins, because there was no intent to harm
- The surgeon wins, because the procedure was performed competently
- The patient wins only if she proves physical damages
Correct answer: The patient wins, because the touching exceeded the scope of consent
Consent to operate on one knee does not extend to the other, making the unauthorized touching a battery regardless of skill.
Question 7: A man breaks into a house at night intending to retrieve his own bicycle, which he genuinely believes the homeowner stole from him. Is he guilty of common law burglary?
- No, because he lacked intent to commit a felony inside (Correct answer)
- Yes, because he broke and entered a dwelling at night
- Yes, because his belief about the bicycle is irrelevant
- No, because burglary requires theft to be completed
Correct answer: No, because he lacked intent to commit a felony inside
A genuine claim of right to the property negates the intent to commit larceny, defeating the felonious-intent element of burglary.
MD Bar Multistate Bar 3
A tenant with two years left on a lease transfers "all of my remaining interest" in the leasehold to a friend.
The friend fails to pay rent.
Can the landlord recover rent directly from the friend?