BARBRI MBE CERTIFICATION REVIEW
SCRIPT 2026 ACCURATE Q&A
COLLECTION
◉WA citizen of State B struck a pedestrian who was a citizen of State
C while driving in A. The pedestrian sued both the driver and the
State A city in federal district court, seeking $100,000. The
pedestrian alleged that the driver = negligently operating his car and
that the State A city = negligently maintaining a traffic signal. The
driver, who owns an office supply wholesaler, also has a contract
claim against the State A city for $80,000 worth of furniture that the
city allegedly purchased and received but never paid for. Assume
that State A has waived any applicable governmental immunity.
If the driver files a cross-claim for negligence against the State A city
to recover damages for his injuries in the accident with the
pedestrian, can the driver join with that cross-claim his contract
claim for the purchase price of the furniture and maintain the claim
in the same federal action?
A) No, because defendants c. Answer: The driver can join his
contract claim with his negligence cross-claim, but he is not required
to do so. As a general rule, a party may assert a cross-claim against a
,co-party only if the cross-claim arises from the same transaction or
occurrence as that of the original action or of a counterclaim.
However, once the party has filed such a cross-claim, he also may
join with it any other claim that he has against the same party. Here,
the driver's contract claim is unrelated to the pedestrian's
negligence claim; however, the driver's negligence claim is related to
the pedestrian's negligence claim. Thus, the contract claim also can
be asserted in this case. (A) is therefore incorrect. (B) is incorrect
because the court would have diversity jurisdiction over the contract
case. (C) is incorrect because the contract claim is not a compulsory
counterclaim.
◉Woman sued her ex-husband for installments due under their
divorce property settlement agreement. The ex-H defended the suit
on the ground that the ex-W was in breach of the agreement. Court
granted judgment for the ex-W. Now, the ex-W is suing ex H for other
installments due under the agreement. The ex-H raises defense that
the agreement = void and illegal b/c of fraud perpetrated by his ex-
wife at the time the agreement was signed. The ex-W moves to strike
her ex-H defense, claiming issue preclusion.
Should the court grant the motion?
A) No, because the issue was never litigated.
B) No, because judgment on one installment does not bar
subsequent actions on other installments.
,C) Yes, because the husband should have raised the defense in the
first action.
D) Yes, because the issue of fraud is never waived.. Answer: The
court should not grant the motion. Generally, issues actually litigated
between the parties are binding on them in subsequent actions
concerning the same claim. If the second suit involves a different
claim, the first judgment may be invoked as to all matters actually
litigated and determined in the first action, provided that the
findings were essential to the first judgment. Here, the fraud issue
was not actually litigated in the first action, and thus it can be raised
with respect to the later installments. (B) is incorrect. The general
principle recited in this answer is true for claim preclusion (unless
there is an acceleration clause). However, even if claim preclusion
does not apply, if the defendant raises the same issues as in the first
case, he may be prevented by issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)
from re-litigating those issues in that subsequent case. (C) is
incorrect. Claim preclusion (res judicata) would bar claims arising
out of the same transaction or occurrence. Here, claim preclusion
does not apply because a defense, not a claim, is involved, and the
second installment is a separate transaction or occurrence. (D) is
incorrect because there is no such rule.
◉A department store buyer and a manufacturer of food processors
entered into a written contract whereby the manufacturer would
sell to the buyer 50 of its top-of-the-line models for $100 each. When
the delivery arrived on May 15, several days early, the buyer noticed
, that the food processors were a different model that did not have all
of the features as the top-of-the-line model that was ordered. The
buyer contacted the manufacturer and told him that he was rejecting
the food processors that were delivered to him and expected the
manufacturer to send 50 top-of-the-line models immediately. The
manufacturer replied that because of a backlog of orders that had
not yet been filled, the top-of-the-line models could not be delivered
until August 15. Because the department store had contracted with a
restaurant to deliver three top-of-the-line models by May 31, the
buyer delivered three of the nonconforming food processors.
Answer: The department store was entitled to recover contract
damages from the manufacturer for the three food processors that it
accepted. If the buyer accepts goods that breach one of the seller's
warranties, the basic measure of damages is the difference between
the value of the goods as delivered and the value they would have
had if they had been according to the contract, which is best stated
by choice (C). The department store's acceptance of the three food
processors did not waive its right to collect damages for the defect in
quality. Thus, (A) and (B) are wrong. Having accepted the
nonconforming food processors, the department store's damages
would be the difference between the value of the food processors as
received and what they would have been worth if they had been as
warranted, plus foreseeable incidental and consequential damages.
(D) is wrong because the measure of damages is based on market
value rather than cost. Also, the agreement with the restaurant was
to accommodate the department store only and was not foreseeable
by the manufacturer.
SCRIPT 2026 ACCURATE Q&A
COLLECTION
◉WA citizen of State B struck a pedestrian who was a citizen of State
C while driving in A. The pedestrian sued both the driver and the
State A city in federal district court, seeking $100,000. The
pedestrian alleged that the driver = negligently operating his car and
that the State A city = negligently maintaining a traffic signal. The
driver, who owns an office supply wholesaler, also has a contract
claim against the State A city for $80,000 worth of furniture that the
city allegedly purchased and received but never paid for. Assume
that State A has waived any applicable governmental immunity.
If the driver files a cross-claim for negligence against the State A city
to recover damages for his injuries in the accident with the
pedestrian, can the driver join with that cross-claim his contract
claim for the purchase price of the furniture and maintain the claim
in the same federal action?
A) No, because defendants c. Answer: The driver can join his
contract claim with his negligence cross-claim, but he is not required
to do so. As a general rule, a party may assert a cross-claim against a
,co-party only if the cross-claim arises from the same transaction or
occurrence as that of the original action or of a counterclaim.
However, once the party has filed such a cross-claim, he also may
join with it any other claim that he has against the same party. Here,
the driver's contract claim is unrelated to the pedestrian's
negligence claim; however, the driver's negligence claim is related to
the pedestrian's negligence claim. Thus, the contract claim also can
be asserted in this case. (A) is therefore incorrect. (B) is incorrect
because the court would have diversity jurisdiction over the contract
case. (C) is incorrect because the contract claim is not a compulsory
counterclaim.
◉Woman sued her ex-husband for installments due under their
divorce property settlement agreement. The ex-H defended the suit
on the ground that the ex-W was in breach of the agreement. Court
granted judgment for the ex-W. Now, the ex-W is suing ex H for other
installments due under the agreement. The ex-H raises defense that
the agreement = void and illegal b/c of fraud perpetrated by his ex-
wife at the time the agreement was signed. The ex-W moves to strike
her ex-H defense, claiming issue preclusion.
Should the court grant the motion?
A) No, because the issue was never litigated.
B) No, because judgment on one installment does not bar
subsequent actions on other installments.
,C) Yes, because the husband should have raised the defense in the
first action.
D) Yes, because the issue of fraud is never waived.. Answer: The
court should not grant the motion. Generally, issues actually litigated
between the parties are binding on them in subsequent actions
concerning the same claim. If the second suit involves a different
claim, the first judgment may be invoked as to all matters actually
litigated and determined in the first action, provided that the
findings were essential to the first judgment. Here, the fraud issue
was not actually litigated in the first action, and thus it can be raised
with respect to the later installments. (B) is incorrect. The general
principle recited in this answer is true for claim preclusion (unless
there is an acceleration clause). However, even if claim preclusion
does not apply, if the defendant raises the same issues as in the first
case, he may be prevented by issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)
from re-litigating those issues in that subsequent case. (C) is
incorrect. Claim preclusion (res judicata) would bar claims arising
out of the same transaction or occurrence. Here, claim preclusion
does not apply because a defense, not a claim, is involved, and the
second installment is a separate transaction or occurrence. (D) is
incorrect because there is no such rule.
◉A department store buyer and a manufacturer of food processors
entered into a written contract whereby the manufacturer would
sell to the buyer 50 of its top-of-the-line models for $100 each. When
the delivery arrived on May 15, several days early, the buyer noticed
, that the food processors were a different model that did not have all
of the features as the top-of-the-line model that was ordered. The
buyer contacted the manufacturer and told him that he was rejecting
the food processors that were delivered to him and expected the
manufacturer to send 50 top-of-the-line models immediately. The
manufacturer replied that because of a backlog of orders that had
not yet been filled, the top-of-the-line models could not be delivered
until August 15. Because the department store had contracted with a
restaurant to deliver three top-of-the-line models by May 31, the
buyer delivered three of the nonconforming food processors.
Answer: The department store was entitled to recover contract
damages from the manufacturer for the three food processors that it
accepted. If the buyer accepts goods that breach one of the seller's
warranties, the basic measure of damages is the difference between
the value of the goods as delivered and the value they would have
had if they had been according to the contract, which is best stated
by choice (C). The department store's acceptance of the three food
processors did not waive its right to collect damages for the defect in
quality. Thus, (A) and (B) are wrong. Having accepted the
nonconforming food processors, the department store's damages
would be the difference between the value of the food processors as
received and what they would have been worth if they had been as
warranted, plus foreseeable incidental and consequential damages.
(D) is wrong because the measure of damages is based on market
value rather than cost. Also, the agreement with the restaurant was
to accommodate the department store only and was not foreseeable
by the manufacturer.
