A patron sued a deli for breach of warranty of fitness and for negligence, alleging that he was poisoned by the food he ate at the deli, causing him to be hospitalized for a period of one week and to have his stomach pumped.
As part of its defense, the deli’s counsel called the manager of the deli. The manager was asked how many bean dinners he served on the day the patron took ill. He answered, “200.” He was then asked how many complaints he received. Upon objection by the patron’s counsel, the question was excluded. After a verdict for the patron, the deli appealed, alleging error in the exclusion of the question by the trial judge.
The appellate court should:
A. Uphold the trial judge, because the question called for the hearsay opinion of the 200 diners that the beans were wholesome as shown by their failure to complain to the manager.
B. Uphold the trial judge, because of the deli’s failure to make an offer of proof.
C. Reverse the trial judge, because the offered testimony is not hearsay.
D. Uphold the trial judge, because the exclusion of the evidence, even though wrong, constituted harmless error.
Without permission, a 17 year old high school student took a friend’s car to drive his girlfriend to dinner. The boy shortly thereafter had an accident, damaging another driver’s automobile. The boy’s uncle went to the garage where the cars had been towed. His nephew was there talking to the other driver and a policeman about the accident. There were no threats of arrest or suit, but during the discussion, the uncle told the other driver to have the car repaired and he, the uncle, would pay for it. Later the same day, before any repair work had been commenced or a cost estimate presented to him, the uncle had a change of heart and told the other driver and the shop foreman of the garage holding the car that he would not pay for the repairs.
The promise of the uncle:
A. Was not supported by consideration because of the preexisting duty rule.
B. Was not supported by consideration because no act or return promise was given by the other driver.
C. Was enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
D. Was supported by consideration.
An owner of two abutting lots on a street deeded the north parcel to a buyer and inserted in the deed the following language: “Grantee, his heirs and assigns shall not plant any shrubbery within 10 feet of the boundary line.” The buyer recorded. The buyer later deeded the north parcel to a friend and did not include the language about the shrubbery in the deed. The friend planted a row of shrubbery within five feet of the common boundary.
If the owner sues the buyer’s friend to require him to remove the shrubbery:
A. The owner will prevail because there is a covenant running with the land.
B. The owner will prevail because the deed from the buyer to the friend carried with it an implied promise not to plant shrubbery within 10 feet of the common boundary of the two parcels.
C. The friend will prevail because the deed from the buyer to the friend created only a personal contract between them.
D. The friend will prevail because there was no writing signed by the buyer, the friend’s predecessor in title.
