SC Bar Multistate Bar 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A landowner orally agreed to sell her farm to a buyer, who then paid part of the price, moved onto the land, and built a barn. When the landowner refused to convey, the buyer sued for specific performance. What is the buyer's best argument against a Statute of Frauds defense?
- The Statute of Frauds applies only to leases exceeding one year
- Oral land contracts are enforceable if made in good faith
- Payment alone always satisfies the Statute of Frauds
- The part performance doctrine takes the oral contract outside the Statute of Frauds (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The part performance doctrine takes the oral contract outside the Statute of Frauds
Part performance—typically payment plus possession plus improvements—permits equitable enforcement of an oral land-sale contract despite the Statute of Frauds.
Question 2: A defendant, intending to frighten his neighbor, fired a gun toward the neighbor's house believing it was empty. A guest inside was struck and killed. Under common law principles, what is the most serious homicide the defendant can be convicted of?
- No homicide, because he lacked intent to kill anyone
- Involuntary manslaughter, because the death was accidental
- Murder, based on a depraved-heart theory of malice (Correct answer)
- Voluntary manslaughter, because he acted in the heat of passion
Correct answer: Murder, based on a depraved-heart theory of malice
Firing a gun at an occupied dwelling shows reckless indifference to human life, supplying the malice required for depraved-heart murder.
Question 3: In a federal civil trial, a plaintiff offers evidence that the defendant repaired a broken stair the day after the plaintiff fell on it, to prove the stair was negligently maintained. Is the evidence admissible?
- Yes, because it is relevant to the condition of the stair
- No, because it is hearsay not within any exception
- Yes, because repairs are admissions by conduct
- No, because subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No, because subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence
Federal Rule of Evidence 407 bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct.
Question 4: A state statute requires all commercial trucks operating in the state to use a specially contoured mudflap not required by any other state, though studies show no safety advantage. A trucking company challenges the law. What is the strongest constitutional basis for striking it down?
- The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
- The Equal Protection Clause, because truckers are a suspect class
- The dormant Commerce Clause, because the law unduly burdens interstate commerce (Correct answer)
- The Contracts Clause, because it impairs shipping agreements
Correct answer: The dormant Commerce Clause, because the law unduly burdens interstate commerce
A nondiscriminatory state law still violates the dormant Commerce Clause when its burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds its putative local benefits.
Question 5: A pedestrian sued a driver for negligence. The jurisdiction follows pure comparative negligence. The jury found damages of $100,000, the pedestrian 60% at fault, and the driver 40% at fault. How much does the pedestrian recover?
- $0
- $60,000
- $100,000
- $40,000 (Correct answer)
Correct answer: $40,000
Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by his own percentage of fault even if he was more at fault than the defendant.
Question 6: An owner conveyed land "to my daughter for life, then to my grandson if he graduates from law school." The grandson is currently in college. What interest does the grandson have?
- A vested remainder subject to divestment
- A springing use
- An executory interest
- A contingent remainder (Correct answer)
Correct answer: A contingent remainder
The grandson's remainder is contingent because it is subject to a condition precedent—graduating from law school—that has not yet occurred.
Question 7: Police arrested a suspect and gave proper Miranda warnings. The suspect said, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." The officers continued questioning, and the suspect confessed. Is the confession admissible?
- No, because officers must clarify ambiguous statements before continuing
- No, because any mention of a lawyer invokes the right to counsel
- Yes, because the suspect's reference to a lawyer was ambiguous and did not require questioning to stop (Correct answer)
- Yes, but only if the suspect signed a written waiver
Correct answer: Yes, because the suspect's reference to a lawyer was ambiguous and did not require questioning to stop
Under Davis v. United States, only an unambiguous request for counsel requires interrogation to cease, and "maybe I should talk to a lawyer" is equivocal.
SC Bar Multistate Bar 2
A landowner orally agreed to sell her farm to a buyer, who then paid part of the price, moved onto the land, and built a barn.
When the landowner refused to convey, the buyer sued for specific performance.
What is the buyer's best argument against a Statute of Frauds defense?