Posts Tagged ‘Quiz/Poll’

Anything I can do (Last Installment)

In Uncategorized on February 16, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Okay folks, last Bar Exam quiz for you today…unless you want to write some practice Commercial Paper or Illinois Civil Procedure essays. Over these last 6 days of multistate subject quizzes, I’ve done well enough that I would have passed. But I hope you did better. Last chance today to prove that anything I can do, you can do better. As always, the answer to the actual question that I missed below is in the comments section. Buena fortuna!

A defendant was on trial for the murder of his business partner. The prosecution offered testimony by the telephone operator in the defendant’s office that she had listened in without the defendant’s knowledge to a telephone call he had received the day before his partner’s death, in which an unidentified man said that he heard talk in a bar the previous night that the business partner was going to tell the cops about a phony insurance claim involving the defendant. The defense attorney objects to the testimony. The trial court should:

a) Sustain the objection, because the operator was an eavesdropper.
b) Sustain the objection, because the testimony is hearsay not within any exception.
c) Overrule the objection, because the statement is relevant to show motive.
d) Overrule the objection, because the statement constitutes an admission by a co-conspirator.


Anything I can do (Part 5)

In Uncategorized on February 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Only two more segments of “I’m a nerdy bar examinee quizshow” left! Then we can get back to my rants, raves, and quote-y stylings.

An antique lover spotted a beautiful early American bedroom ensemble that included several pieces. There was negotiating over the price, but no agreement. On April 3, the shop owner and antique lover signed a statement whereby the shop owner offered to sell the ensemble (describing each piece by lot number) if the parties agreed upon a price on or before April 12. On April 6, the shop owner sent a letter to the antique lover, telling her that she could have the ensemble for $22,000. Also on April 6, the antique lover sent a letter to the shop owner telling him that she was willing to pay him $22,000 for the ensemble. Both parties received the letters on April 7.

Without assuming any additional facts, which of the following statements is most correct as of April 8?

a) The shop owner and the antique lover had a valid contract from the moment the letters of April 6 were mailed.
b) A contract exists between the shop owner and the antique lover, because the shop owner – a merchant – sent the antique lover an offer in writing.
c) A contract exists because the crossing offers were identical and received before April 12.
d) No contract exists because of a lack of mutual assent.

(Good luck! Answer’s in the comments)

Anything I can do (Part 4)- Happy V-Day!

In Uncategorized on February 14, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Happy Valentine’s Day, everyone (HB, D)! Hope you all appreciate those that love you today. Well, today’s quiz comes courtesy of constitutional law. Sometimes “ConLaw” is exciting, most of the time it’s not. I can explain over half of ConLaw in one sentence: the federal government can do almost anything as long as it says it’s “regulating the channels, instrumentalities, and substantial effects of interstate commerce.” Anyway, I didn’t choose such a question today…this one is fun! Good luck! (answer in the comments section)
Constitutional Law

After a state supreme court overturned the conviction of a murder for failure to give proper Miranda warnings, a reporter asked the murder victim’s father to comment on the case as he exited the court building. The father made the following statement: “Each one of the so-called supreme court justices is worse than a murderer because they make it possible for more sons and daughters to be murdered. I’d like to see every one of them strung up, like they should have done to the creep who was set free, and if someone will give me a rope, I’ll go in there and do it myself.”

A state statute with criminal penalties proscribes “the making of any threat to the life of safety of a public official for any act the official performed as part of the official’s duties in office.” Which of the following is correct regarding the statute?

a) The victim’s father could constitutionally be punished under the statute, but only if the state supreme court justices heard the threats he made
b) The victim’s father could constitutionally be punished under the statute
c) The victim’s father could not be constitutionally punished under these circumstances, but the statute is constitutional on its face
d) The statute is unconstitutional on its face

Anything I can do (Part 3)

In Uncategorized on February 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Well, it seems like you all are kicking my butt at these questions. Congratulations (jerks). Well, today is “Real Property,” which sucks. Except that I’m good at it. Except when it comes to applying the Rule Against Perpetuities. Because that Rule is incomprehensible, I’ll not ask one those, even though those were the questions I missed today. See the comments section for today’s answer!)
Real Property (beware! a trick question today!)

A buyer entered into a written contract with a seller to purchase his commercial property for $100k. The contract did not specify the quality of title to be conveyed and made no mention of easements or reservations. The closing was set for Nov. 25, three months after the signing of the contract. Shortly thereafter, the buyer obtained a survey of the property, which revealed that the city had an easement for the public sidewalk that ran in front of the store. Because this actually enhanced the value of the property, the buyer did not mention it to the seller.

Subsequently, buyer found a better location. On Nov. 1, the buyer notified the seller that she no longer intended to purchase the property. The seller told her that he intended to hold her to the contract. At closing, the buyer refused to tender the purchase price, claiming that the seller’s title was unmarketable and citing the sidewalk easement as proof. In a suit for specific performance, the seller will most likely:

a) Prevail, because the contract did not specify the quality of title to be conveyed
b) Prevail, because the buyer was aware of the visible easement and it enhanced the value of the property
c) Not prevail, because an easement not provided for in the contract renders title unmarketable
d) Not prevail, because the buyer gave the seller sufficient notice of her change in plans and yet he made no effort to try to find another purchaser

Anything I can do (Part 2)

In Uncategorized on February 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm

Next installment of “Are You Smarter than a DeMarkgrader?”
(And hey, if you think THAT is copyright infringement, check out the page on this site entitled “Holy Copyright Infringement, Batman!”)
Criminal Law

(I was hoping I’d get this one wrong so I could post it)
The criminal law of the state uses the common law elements to define the crime of burglary (ed. note: burglary = the breaking and entering of another’s dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein). The state also has a statute making “flashing” (exposing of sexual parts) a felony. One night, the defendant broke into the home of the victim, a young woman in the neighborhood. He entered her bedroom and opened his trenchcoat to “flash” her. The victim screamed and the defendant fled, taking nothing with him from her home. At the time of the “flashing,” the defendant was wearing long-john underwear, which was extremely difficult to remove and which he knew he wouldn’t have time to remove. Thus, he did not actually expose his sexual organs to the victim. The defendant knew about the “flashing” statute, but did not know that actual exposure of sexual organs is an element of the crime. Can he be convicted of burglary?

a) Yes, because he broke into the victim’s dwelling place in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony
b) Yes, because the defendant’s mistake as to the flashing law is not a defense
c) No, because the defendant did not commit a felony
d) No, because the defendant could not have committed the felony while still wearing concealing underwear.

(answer in the comments section; good luck!)

Anything I can do, you can do better

In Uncategorized on February 11, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Where I’m at: Chicago (t-minus 44 days)
What I’m doing: getting ripped off by 7/11 (who doesn’t put egg on a breakfast sandwich?!)
Why I’m posting: because you’re smarter than I am (in other words: Quiz yo’self, foo!)
Studying for the bar exam can be tedious, but mostly because it’s so lonely. Even those other folks taking the bar exam at the same time can’t exactly relate because (a) they’re probably freaked out, and (b) there’s a lot of posturing that goes on (e.g. “How’d you do on that practice test yesterday? Yea…I got like 105% or something. I mean, I KNOW evidence law cold.”). So I thought I’d share. Below is an actual practice multiple choice question I did this morning. I think I may post a new one each morning for the next few days, each in a different topic. I’ll randomly choose one I got wrong. See if you’re better than me (I know you already thought you were). I’ll post the answer and a brief explanation in the comments section. No peeking!

And good luck!

A company that owned a tract of land believed to be rich in mineral deposits contracted with a licensed excavator for the removal of soil from the property and delivery of the soil to the company’s lab. While of the excavator’s trucks was on the way to the lab, the rear gate broke loose, dumping three tons of soil onto the highway. A motorist who was driving a short but safe distance behind the truck was unable to stop in time and collided with the soil, causing her serious injury. The rear gate had been negligently secured by one of the excavator’s employees. If the motorist sues the company for his injuries and does not prevail, it will be because:
a) The rear gate was secured by the excavator’s employee
b) The excavator had a license to transport soil on the highway
c) The company’s duty in respect to the movement of its soil on the highway was delegable
d) The transportation of soil on the highways was a common practice in the area where the accident occurred

Worst Supreme Court Case Ever and 2010 World Series Champs

In Uncategorized on February 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

First polls! Vote! Even multiple times (for friends of course)