Multistate Bar Exam Practice Test 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An offeror sends an offer by mail on Monday. The offeree mails a rejection on Tuesday, then calls to accept on Wednesday before the rejection letter arrives. Under the mailbox rule, is there a contract?
- Yes, because the phone acceptance was communicated before the rejection arrived (Correct answer)
- No, because the rejection was dispatched before the acceptance
- Yes, because the oral acceptance overrides the written rejection
- No, because the mailbox rule applies only to written acceptances
Correct answer: Yes, because the phone acceptance was communicated before the rejection arrived
When a rejection is mailed but an acceptance is communicated (by any means) before the rejection arrives, a contract is formed because the offeror has not yet received the rejection.
Question 2: A driver negligently runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian. The pedestrian's injuries are aggravated because she has a rare clotting disorder. Under the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule, who bears responsibility for the aggravated injuries?
- The driver, for all injuries including those caused by the pre-existing condition (Correct answer)
- The pedestrian, for the portion of harm attributable to her condition
- The driver, only for injuries a normal healthy person would have sustained
- Both share liability proportionally under comparative fault
Correct answer: The driver, for all injuries including those caused by the pre-existing condition
The eggshell plaintiff rule holds a tortfeasor liable for all damages caused to the plaintiff, even if those damages are greater than expected due to a pre-existing vulnerability.
Question 3: Congress passes a law directing the President to reduce tariffs on foreign steel whenever domestic steel prices exceed a set threshold. The President argues this improperly delegates executive authority. Is the law constitutional?
- No, because Congress cannot delegate tariff authority to the President under any circumstances
- Yes, if Congress provides an intelligible principle guiding the President's exercise of the authority (Correct answer)
- No, because trade regulation is exclusively a legislative function
- Yes, because tariff adjustments are inherently executive in nature
Correct answer: Yes, if Congress provides an intelligible principle guiding the President's exercise of the authority
Under the non-delegation doctrine, Congress may delegate legislative authority to the executive if it provides an intelligible principle to guide the delegate's exercise of that authority.
Question 4: A testator's holographic will states 'I leave my house to my brother.' The testator later buys a second house. The brother claims both houses. The will is silent on after-acquired property. What is the likely result?
- The brother gets both houses because a will speaks at death and includes after-acquired property (Correct answer)
- The brother gets only the house owned when the will was executed
- The brother gets both houses only if the testator was aware of the second house at death
- The second house passes by intestacy regardless of the will's language
Correct answer: The brother gets both houses because a will speaks at death and includes after-acquired property
Under the doctrine that a will speaks at the testator's death, a general devise of 'my house' can include after-acquired real property of that description unless the will clearly identifies a specific parcel.
Question 5: A defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. Before the robbery occurs, he withdraws from the conspiracy and informs the police. Is he liable for the conspiracy?
- No, because withdrawal before the target crime is a complete defense to conspiracy
- Yes, because conspiracy is complete upon agreement and overt act, and withdrawal is not a defense under common law (Correct answer)
- No, because he provided timely notice to law enforcement
- Yes, but only if an overt act was committed after his withdrawal
Correct answer: Yes, because conspiracy is complete upon agreement and overt act, and withdrawal is not a defense under common law
Under common law, conspiracy is complete upon agreement (plus an overt act in jurisdictions requiring one), so withdrawal does not eliminate liability for the conspiracy itself, though it may bar liability for subsequent crimes.
Question 6: A plaintiff in a diversity case in federal court seeks to introduce a contract under a state's parol evidence rule to exclude prior oral negotiations. The defendant argues the federal rules of evidence control. Which rule applies?
- Federal Rules of Evidence, because federal procedural rules govern in federal court
- State parol evidence rule, because it is substantive under Erie and affects outcome (Correct answer)
- Federal Rules of Evidence, because they supersede state evidence rules in all cases
- State parol evidence rule, only if both parties are from the same state
Correct answer: State parol evidence rule, because it is substantive under Erie and affects outcome
Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law; the parol evidence rule is generally treated as substantive because it affects parties' rights under the contract.
Question 7: A seller conveys Blackacre to A, then subsequently conveys Blackacre to B, who has no notice of the prior conveyance and records first. The jurisdiction has a notice-race recording act. Who prevails?
- A, because the first conveyance is valid
- B, because B recorded first and had no notice (Correct answer)
- A, because recording acts do not affect the first grantee
- B, only if A had actual notice of B's intention to purchase
Correct answer: B, because B recorded first and had no notice
Under a race-notice recording act, a subsequent bona fide purchaser who takes without notice of a prior conveyance and records before the prior grantee prevails.
Multistate Bar Exam Practice Test 3
An offeror sends an offer by mail on Monday.
The offeree mails a rejection on Tuesday, then calls to accept on Wednesday before the rejection letter arrives.
Under the mailbox rule, is there a contract?