A buyer and a seller entered into an oral agreement for the purchase of a house. The buyer gave the seller a deposit. Three days before the scheduled closing, the seller executed a deed which describes the property but does not recite the purchase price, and he placed it in a folder that he intended to take to the closing. The following day, the seller suffered a severe stroke, and the court appointed a guardian for him. The buyer appeared at the closing at the appropriate time, but neither the seller nor his guardian appeared. The guardian refuses to complete the transaction. In a suit for specific performance, brought by the buyer against the seller and his guardian,

A. The buyer will lose, because the seller’s incapacity terminated the contract.

B. The buyer will lose, because of the Statute of Frauds.

C. The buyer will win, because the deed constitutes a memorandum.

D. The buyer will win, because the placement of the signed deed in the folder was constructive delivery.

After the President pardoned a drug dealer, who was convicted on federal drug charges, Congress duly enacted a law which provides that the President can pardon individuals convicted for drug offenses and sentenced to prison only after they have served one-half of their minimum term.

If the constitutionality of the statute was properly challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely hold that it is:

A. Constitutional, pursuant to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

B. Constitutional, pursuant to the power of Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to its enumerated powers.

C. Unconstitutional, because the act unconstitutionally restricts the inherent powers of the President.

D. Unconstitutional, because the power of the President to pardon for federal crimes is explicitly granted by the U.S. Constitution.

A singer and a producer signed a document, in which the singer agreed to perform at a city concert hall on February 15, 16, and 17, in return for 10% of the gross income from the sale of tickets. The city concert hall is owned by the producer and uninsured. On February 14, the concert hall was destroyed by a fire, through no fault of either the singer or the producer, after the singer had arrived in the city ready to perform.

In a suit between the singer and the producer:

A. The singer is entitled to nothing, because of the doctrine of frustration of purpose.

B. The singer is entitled to nothing, because of the doctrine of impossibility of performance.

C. The singer is entitled to recover expenses from the producer.

D. The singer is entitled to $6,000, if $60,000 worth of tickets had been sold prior to February 15.

A state statute requires that cars traveling behind or approaching a school bus must stop when the bus flashes its red stop lights. A bus was traveling south, approaching an intersection, when the bus driver turned on its red flashers, and traffic in both directions stopped. The driver of the car two vehicles behind the bus was the mother of the only child who uses that bus stop. Because the mother was late for work and knew that no child would be getting on at this stop, since her daughter was at home that day, she decided to pass the bus. Meanwhile, a package delivery truck was driving toward the intersection. The truck driver saw the school bus stopped and decided to take advantage of all the stopped traffic. After slowing just barely to a stop, he proceeded across the road. He collided with the mother’s car just as she entered the intersection. The truck driver sued the mother for negligence.

What is the likely effect of the statute?

A. The mother’s failure to stop for the bus was negligence per se.

B. The mother’s knowledge that no child could be injured excused her action in passing the bus.

C. The mother’s violation of the statute is not relevant, because the truck driver is not a member of the class of persons intended to be protected.

D. The mother’s violation of the statute is at least evidence of negligence.

A defendant was charged with armed robbery of a bank. At the defendant’s preliminary hearing, a bank guard, who was on duty at the time of the robbery, testified under oath that the robber had a tattoo with a large heart and the word “Mother” on his left forearm. The defendant has such a tattoo on his left forearm. The defense attorney did not cross-examine the guard.

At the defendant’s trial, the bank guard was asked on direct examination to describe the bank robber. He said the robber had no identifying marks on his body. The prosecutor then asked the guard, “Did you testify at the preliminary hearing in this case that the robber had a tattoo with a large heart and the word ‘Mother’ on his left forearm?” The defense objected. The trial judge asked the prosecutor if the question was being offered as substantive evidence of identification of the defendant, and the prosecutor responded affirmatively.

The trial judge should rule that the question is:

A. Admissible, as former testimony.

B. Admissible, as a prior inconsistent statement.

C. Admissible, either as former testimony or as a prior inconsistent statement.

D. Inadmissible.

A married man was having a love affair with  a woman, and he had lied to her about his marital status. When she found out he was married, she shot him. The man’s wife found him in his wounded condition and asked what happened. He said that a woman had shot him, but he refused to identify  her. The wife walked away. The man died of the wound, but he would not have if medical assistance had been summoned.

Who is guilty of a homicide crime?

A. The woman only.

B. The wife only.

C. Both the wife and the woman.

D. Neither the wife nor the woman.

A state statute governing foreclosures grants a mortgagor the right to redeem his property within two years from the foreclosure sale by paying the amount bid at the foreclosure sale, plus expenses and interest.

On February 1, 1997, at the foreclosure sale of a parcel of land, a purchaser paid $50,000 to the mortgagee and duly recorded a foreclosure deed. The next day, the former owner of the land assigned the property to a transferee, but the transferee did not record the assignment.

On July 1, 1997, the purchaser deeded the land to a grantee, who examined title and duly recorded his deed. On August 1, 1997, the transferee delivered to the grantee a copy of his assignment, tendered $50,000 plus interest and costs, and demanded a deed to the land. The grantee refused to deliver a deed, and the transferee brought suit. In that suit:

A. The grantee will prevail, because he is a bona fide purchaser without knowledge of the assignment from the former owner to the transferee.

B. The grantee will prevail, because the right to redeem is personal to the former owner.

C. The transferee will prevail, only if he paid value for the assignment.

D. The transferee will prevail, because he perfected the former owner’s right of redemption.

A long-standing controversial religious group had several disputes with local politicians. An inspection of the group’s church building by the county fire marshal determined that the building failed to meet code because of insufficient fire exits, and proceedings were initiated to revoke the church’s certificate of occupancy. The group requested that the county make an exemption from the building code, asserting that it could not afford to make the necessary changes to make the building conform to the code, and that closing the building would hinder their ability to congregate and worship.

If the group’s request is denied and the group seeks to enjoin the county from enforcing the building code on constitutional grounds, the decision should be for:

A. The county, because an exemption for the church would constitute an establishment of religion.

B. The church, on the basis of freedom of religion.

C. The church, on the basis of equal protection.

D. The county, because the regulation was not intended to close the church.

The owner of a shoe store decided to procure fire insurance for her building. Because the store owner was short on cash, she executed a mortgage on the building to a bank in exchange for cash sufficient to pay the fire insurance premiums.

The store owner obtained a fire insurance policy from an insurance company, payable to the store owner and the bank, as their interests exist at the time of loss. With regard to the insurance contract, the bank is:

A. A party to the contract.

B. An intended beneficiary.

C. An incidental beneficiary.

D. None of the above.

Two police officers in uniform were on foot patrol in a neighborhood frequented by drug sellers. They saw a dealer who, when she saw them, turned around and started to walk quickly away. The police ran after her and shouted, “Stop and don’t take another step, lady!” The dealer turned, looked at the police, and stopped. She put her arms up in the air. As the police approached, she threw a small object into nearby bushes. The police retrieved the object, which turned out to be a small bag of cocaine, and then arrested the dealer.

The dealer is charged with possession of the cocaine. She moves pretrial to suppress its use as evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure.

Her motion should be:

A. Granted, because the police did not know the item was cocaine until after they had seized it.

B. Granted, because the police acquired the cocaine as the result of an unlawful seizure.

C. Denied, because the police had probable cause to seize the package.

D. Denied, because Sandra voluntarily discarded the contraband.