Ronan is the leader of a religious cult in Gotham City. He holds a weekly “service” in the public park and, during his sermon, uses insulting expletives directed at persons in his audience who are not members of the cult. The audience has become boisterous and several times fights have almost broken out between members of the audience and members of the cult. After a particularly boisterous rally, the attorney for the city of Gotham obtained an ex parte injunction prohibiting Ronan from conducting any further rallies “which tend to disturb or annoy the average member of the community.” If challenged on appeal, a judge would find the injunction:
A. Valid, because the threats of imminent violence justify the injunction.
B. Invalid, because the injunction is overly broad and vague.
C. Invalid, because the injunction was obtained in a manner which violates procedural due process.
D. Invalid for the reasons set forth in B & C.
A painter, who has been in the painting and contracting business for ten years, contracts to paint a farmer’s barn. The farmer’s barn is a standard red barn with a loft. The contract contains the following clause:
“It is agreed that the work will be completed to the full and complete satisfaction of the farmer.”
Which of the following statements is correct?
A. The farmer can avoid having to pay simply by declaring that he is dissatisfied with the work.
B. The farmer will have to pay if a reasonable person would be satisfied with the work.
C. Even if a reasonable person would be satisfied with the work, the farmer will not have to pay if he is genuinely dissatisfied with the work.
D. The clause has no effect on the liability of the farmer, because it fails to set any enforceable standard of what constitutes satisfaction.
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.
