MI Bar Multistate Bar 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A buyer and seller signed a fully integrated written contract for the sale of a business. The buyer seeks to introduce evidence of a prior oral agreement that contradicts a written term. The evidence is:
- Inadmissible under the parol evidence rule (Correct answer)
- Admissible because oral agreements are always provable
- Admissible to show the parties' true intent
- Inadmissible only if the seller objects in writing
Correct answer: Inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
The parol evidence rule bars prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict the terms of a fully integrated written contract.
Question 2: A statute requires drivers to stop for school buses loading children. A driver violated the statute and struck a child crossing to board the bus. The statutory violation most likely establishes:
- Negligence per se, because the child is in the protected class and the harm is the type the statute prevents (Correct answer)
- Only evidence of negligence for the jury to weigh
- Strict liability for all resulting harm
- No effect, because statutes cannot set the civil standard of care
Correct answer: Negligence per se, because the child is in the protected class and the harm is the type the statute prevents
Violating a statute designed to protect this class of persons from this type of harm conclusively establishes duty and breach in most jurisdictions.
Question 3: A testifying witness in a civil case was convicted of felony tax fraud four years ago. The conviction is:
- Admissible to impeach, because crimes of dishonesty must be admitted (Correct answer)
- Admissible only if the judge finds probative value outweighs prejudice
- Inadmissible because the case is civil
- Inadmissible because more than three years have passed
Correct answer: Admissible to impeach, because crimes of dishonesty must be admitted
Under FRE 609(a)(2), convictions involving a dishonest act or false statement are automatically admissible to impeach any witness.
Question 4: A private shopping mall ejected peaceful political protesters. The protesters sued, claiming a First Amendment violation. They will most likely:
- Lose, because the mall is a private actor and no state action exists (Correct answer)
- Win, because malls are the modern public square
- Win, because speech restrictions require strict scrutiny
- Lose, only if the mall posted no-solicitation signs
Correct answer: Lose, because the mall is a private actor and no state action exists
The First Amendment restrains only government conduct, and a privately owned mall is not a state actor under federal law.
Question 5: Police questioned a suspect at his own kitchen table, told him he was free to end the conversation, and never arrested him; he confessed without Miranda warnings. The confession is:
- Admissible, because the suspect was not in custody (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible, because all police questioning requires Miranda warnings
- Inadmissible, because the questioning was interrogation
- Admissible only if the suspect signed a written waiver
Correct answer: Admissible, because the suspect was not in custody
Miranda warnings are required only for custodial interrogation, and questioning in one's home with freedom to leave is not custodial.
Question 6: In a race-notice jurisdiction, an owner sold land to Buyer A, who did not record. The owner then sold the same land to Buyer B, who knew nothing of A and recorded promptly. Who prevails?
- Buyer B, because she took without notice and recorded first (Correct answer)
- Buyer A, because he purchased first in time
- Buyer A, because B's deed derives from a dishonest grantor
- Buyer B, but only if A never takes possession
Correct answer: Buyer B, because she took without notice and recorded first
Under a race-notice statute, a subsequent bona fide purchaser who records before the prior purchaser prevails.
Question 7: In a federal diversity action, state law sets a two-year statute of limitations while the analogous federal claim would allow four years. The federal court must:
- Apply the state statute of limitations, because it is substantive under Erie (Correct answer)
- Apply the federal period, because procedure follows the forum
- Let the jury choose the applicable period
- Certify the question to the state legislature
Correct answer: Apply the state statute of limitations, because it is substantive under Erie
Under Erie, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law, and statutes of limitations are treated as substantive.
MI Bar Multistate Bar 3
A buyer and seller signed a fully integrated written contract for the sale of a business.
The buyer seeks to introduce evidence of a prior oral agreement that contradicts a written term.
The evidence is: