LEGL 2700 ROESSING TEST 3 FINAL PAPER
2026 QUESTIONS WITH FULL ANSWERS
◉ spoilation. Answer: -destruction of evidence in a civil lawsuit
-assume you're lying about something
◉ Johnson v. Harmon (1876). Answer: -intoxication was not a
defense -> Old English Common Law
-clear and easy
-nature and consequences of act -> incapable of understanding
◉ Lucy v. Zehmer (1954). Answer: -sell farm on cocktail napkin
-"high as a Georgia pine"
-defendant has to show they were too drunk to be in a contract
◉ Jackie Coogan. Answer: -mom spent his money
-California Statute -> Coogan's Law
◉ Exception to holding contracts to minors. Answer: -get cosigner
(parent)
-if contract is for necessaries (food, place to stay, school)
-ratification: ratified the deal when you're 18
,-emancipation: minor is mature enough to handle their own finances
◉ Coogan's Law. Answer: -California Statute
-judicial oversight
-fair hours, education
-Coogan account: 15% that can't be used; saved for child when they
turn 18
◉ economic duress. Answer: I really needed something
◉ gratuitous promise. Answer: -aren't legally binding
-requirement for consideration:
both sides are giving something
bargained for exchange
◉ nominal consideration. Answer: I'm paying something & you're
accepting something -> legally binding contract
-ex. Peppercorn Ceremony
◉ illusory promise. Answer: -"if you feel like it"
-one party is entirely in control & can back out of the contract at
anytime
,◉ pre-existing duty. Answer: -can't use legal duty as consideration
for reward; something they already had to do
-ex. police officer wanting the reward for your lost pet
◉ Mills v. Wyman (1825). Answer: -Mills: took care of Wyman's son
-Wyman told Mills he'd give him $5,000 -> never did
-past/ prior consideration -> IS NOT legal consideration
-merely a gratuitous promise
◉ equity. Answer: -judge decides
-no adequate legal remedy
-prevent injustice
-discretion
◉ Kirksey v. Kirksey (1845). Answer: -Alabama brothers
-court said too bad
◉ Wright v. Newman (1996). Answer: -Georgia
-two people in a relationship
-woman has a baby with another man
-man has to pay for a child that's not his
, ◉ Stambovsky v. Ackley (1991). Answer: -court case where man
discovered his house was "haunted" after he bought it
-"caveat emptor" -> buyer beware
-have to disclose: material latent defects
-the law doesn't believe in ghosts
-"as a matter of law, this house is haunted"
-ended up undoing the contract -> recission
◉ stigmatized properties. Answer: nothing is wrong physically, but it
affects you mentally
◉ Griffin v. Haunted Hotel Inc. Answer: -haunted house for adults
- assault & negligence claim
-assumption of risk by contract -> implied in fact
-industry customs -> "Carrie" movie
◉ Bird Scooters. Answer: -product liability
-can't sue Bird -> Binding Arbitration
-no class action suit
◉ Ways to be hurt by Bird Scooters. Answer: -rider injuries
2026 QUESTIONS WITH FULL ANSWERS
◉ spoilation. Answer: -destruction of evidence in a civil lawsuit
-assume you're lying about something
◉ Johnson v. Harmon (1876). Answer: -intoxication was not a
defense -> Old English Common Law
-clear and easy
-nature and consequences of act -> incapable of understanding
◉ Lucy v. Zehmer (1954). Answer: -sell farm on cocktail napkin
-"high as a Georgia pine"
-defendant has to show they were too drunk to be in a contract
◉ Jackie Coogan. Answer: -mom spent his money
-California Statute -> Coogan's Law
◉ Exception to holding contracts to minors. Answer: -get cosigner
(parent)
-if contract is for necessaries (food, place to stay, school)
-ratification: ratified the deal when you're 18
,-emancipation: minor is mature enough to handle their own finances
◉ Coogan's Law. Answer: -California Statute
-judicial oversight
-fair hours, education
-Coogan account: 15% that can't be used; saved for child when they
turn 18
◉ economic duress. Answer: I really needed something
◉ gratuitous promise. Answer: -aren't legally binding
-requirement for consideration:
both sides are giving something
bargained for exchange
◉ nominal consideration. Answer: I'm paying something & you're
accepting something -> legally binding contract
-ex. Peppercorn Ceremony
◉ illusory promise. Answer: -"if you feel like it"
-one party is entirely in control & can back out of the contract at
anytime
,◉ pre-existing duty. Answer: -can't use legal duty as consideration
for reward; something they already had to do
-ex. police officer wanting the reward for your lost pet
◉ Mills v. Wyman (1825). Answer: -Mills: took care of Wyman's son
-Wyman told Mills he'd give him $5,000 -> never did
-past/ prior consideration -> IS NOT legal consideration
-merely a gratuitous promise
◉ equity. Answer: -judge decides
-no adequate legal remedy
-prevent injustice
-discretion
◉ Kirksey v. Kirksey (1845). Answer: -Alabama brothers
-court said too bad
◉ Wright v. Newman (1996). Answer: -Georgia
-two people in a relationship
-woman has a baby with another man
-man has to pay for a child that's not his
, ◉ Stambovsky v. Ackley (1991). Answer: -court case where man
discovered his house was "haunted" after he bought it
-"caveat emptor" -> buyer beware
-have to disclose: material latent defects
-the law doesn't believe in ghosts
-"as a matter of law, this house is haunted"
-ended up undoing the contract -> recission
◉ stigmatized properties. Answer: nothing is wrong physically, but it
affects you mentally
◉ Griffin v. Haunted Hotel Inc. Answer: -haunted house for adults
- assault & negligence claim
-assumption of risk by contract -> implied in fact
-industry customs -> "Carrie" movie
◉ Bird Scooters. Answer: -product liability
-can't sue Bird -> Binding Arbitration
-no class action suit
◉ Ways to be hurt by Bird Scooters. Answer: -rider injuries
