MI Bar Multistate Bar 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A merchant sent a signed written offer to sell equipment, stating the offer would remain open for 60 days. Twenty days later, before acceptance, the merchant attempted to revoke. Under the UCC, is the revocation effective?
- No, because a merchant's signed firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period up to three months (Correct answer)
- Yes, because no consideration was given to keep the offer open
- Yes, because offers are always revocable before acceptance
- No, only if the buyer relied on the offer to its detriment
Correct answer: No, because a merchant's signed firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period up to three months
UCC 2-205 makes a merchant's signed written firm offer irrevocable for the stated time, not to exceed three months, without consideration.
Question 2: A homeowner kept a pet wolf that had never shown aggression. The wolf escaped and bit a neighbor. In the neighbor's suit, the homeowner is most likely:
- Strictly liable, because a wolf is a wild animal (Correct answer)
- Not liable, because the wolf had no known dangerous propensities
- Liable only if the neighbor proves negligence in confinement
- Not liable, because the escape was unforeseeable
Correct answer: Strictly liable, because a wolf is a wild animal
Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for harm caused by the animal's dangerous propensities regardless of prior behavior or care taken.
Question 3: Moments after a car crash, a bystander shouted, 'That blue truck ran the red light!' At trial, another witness testifies to the bystander's statement. The statement is:
- Admissible as an excited utterance (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible hearsay because the bystander is not testifying
- Admissible only if the bystander is unavailable
- Inadmissible because it states an opinion
Correct answer: Admissible as an excited utterance
A statement relating to a startling event made while under the stress of excitement qualifies as an excited utterance exception to hearsay.
Question 4: A state law requires all milk sold in the state to be bottled at in-state facilities, burdening out-of-state dairies. The law's strongest constitutional vulnerability is:
- The dormant Commerce Clause, because it discriminates against interstate commerce (Correct answer)
- The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
- Substantive due process
- The Contracts Clause
Correct answer: The dormant Commerce Clause, because it discriminates against interstate commerce
A state law that facially discriminates against out-of-state commerce is virtually per se invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause absent a compelling local interest with no alternatives.
Question 5: During an armed robbery, a store owner shot and killed one of the two robbers. In a jurisdiction following the agency theory of felony murder, the surviving robber is:
- Not guilty of felony murder, because the killing was not committed by a co-felon (Correct answer)
- Guilty of felony murder, because the death occurred during the felony
- Guilty of felony murder, because the robbery proximately caused the death
- Not guilty of any homicide offense
Correct answer: Not guilty of felony murder, because the killing was not committed by a co-felon
Under the agency theory, felony murder applies only to killings committed by a felon or co-felon, not by a victim or police officer.
Question 6: Two siblings held land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. One sibling secretly conveyed her interest to a friend, then died. Who owns the property?
- The surviving sibling and the friend as tenants in common (Correct answer)
- The surviving sibling alone, by survivorship
- The friend alone, as the last grantee
- The surviving sibling and the friend as joint tenants
Correct answer: The surviving sibling and the friend as tenants in common
A joint tenant's inter vivos conveyance severs the joint tenancy as to that share, creating a tenancy in common between the grantee and the remaining owner.
Question 7: A plaintiff from Ohio sues a defendant from Michigan in federal court, asserting one claim for $50,000 and an unrelated claim for $40,000 against the same defendant. Is the amount-in-controversy requirement met?
- Yes, because a single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant (Correct answer)
- No, because unrelated claims cannot be aggregated
- No, because each claim must independently exceed $75,000
- Yes, but only if the claims arise from the same transaction
Correct answer: Yes, because a single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant
One plaintiff may aggregate all claims, related or not, against one defendant to satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
MI Bar Multistate Bar 2
A merchant sent a signed written offer to sell equipment, stating the offer would remain open for 60 days.
Twenty days later, before acceptance, the merchant attempted to revoke.
Under the UCC, is the revocation effective?