Simulated MBE 1 Practice Test Questions with Correct Answers 100% Verified|
Guaranteed Success
A driver was traveling along a highway during an unusually heavy rainstorm when the roadway
began to flood. To protect his car from water damage, the driver pulled his car up a steep,
unmarked driveway abutting the highway that led to a homeowner's residence. The driver left
his car parked in the driveway and walked home, intending to return when the floodwater had
subsided. Shortly after the driver started to walk home, the homeowner carefully rolled the car
back down his driveway and parked it on the highway shoulder. The floodwater continued to
rise and caused damage to the driver's car.
If the driver sues the homeowner to recover for damage to the car, is the driver likely to
prevail? Yes, because the drive was privileged to park his car on the homeowner's property.
A landowner has no right to forcibly expel a trespasser or a trespasser's property when the
trespasser was driven by necessity to trespass on his land, and the landowner is liable for any
damage to property of the trespasser that results from an expulsion. If the car had damaged
the homeowner's property, the homeowner could have collected damages from the driver.
A buyer sent a seller an offer to buy 50 tons of cotton of a specified quality. The offer contained
no terms except those specifying the amount and quality of the cotton. The seller then sent an
acknowledgment by fax. The acknowledgment repeated the terms of the buyer's offer and
stated that shipment would occur within five days. Among 12 printed terms on the
acknowledgment was a statement that any dispute about the cotton's quality would be
submitted to arbitration. Neither the buyer nor the seller said anything further about
arbitration. The seller shipped the cotton, and it was accepted by the buyer. A dispute arose
between the buyer and the seller as to the quality of the cotton, and the seller asserted that
the dispute had to be submitted to arbitration. The buyer instead sued the seller in court.
In that suit, which of the following arguments best supports the seller's position that the buyer
must submit the di The provision for arbitration did not materially alter the parties contract.
Buyer's offer was silent as to arbitration, the arbitration provision in the seller's
acknowledgement should be characterized as an additional term. Under UCC 2-207(2), an
additional term is considered a proposal for addition to the contract. 2-207(2) also provides
,that an additional term becomes a term of the parties' contract unless certain specified
circumstances are present. One such circumstance is where an additional term materially alters
the parties' contract. Because none of the other circumstances appear applicable here, the
arbitration provision will be considered a term of the contract if the seller can successfully
argue that the provision did not materially alter the parties' contract.
Congress enacted a statute authorizing the denial of all federal funding to public school districts
in which a specified percentage of the students enrolled in the public schools fail to pass a
national achievement test. According to the terms of the federal statute, the first national
achievement test was scheduled for administration five years from the effective date of the
statute.
After reviewing then-current levels of public school student performance, the officials of a state
became concerned that several of its public school districts would lose their federal funding
after the administration of the first national achievement test. Then-current levels of private
school student performance were substantially higher.
In order to improve the chances of those school districts retaining their federal funding, the
state recently enacted a law that requires all children of elementary and secondary school age
to attend No, because it is not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
Supreme Court precedent establishes that a state law requiring children to attend public
schools infringes on the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children. SC
precedent also establishes that this right is a fundamental aspect of liberty protected by the
due process clause of the 14th amendment. State law that infringes on that right must
therefore undergo strict scrutiny, which requires the state to prove that the law is necessary to
further a compelling state interest. In this case, school cannot satisfy strict scrutiny, because
requiring private school students to attend public schools in order to raise the test scores in
public school districts is not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
A janitorial service contracted in writing with a hospital for a one-year term. Under the terms of
the contract, the janitorial service agreed to clean the hospital daily in accordance with the
hygiene standards of the city's health code. Because the janitorial service did not clean a
patient's room in accordance with the required hygiene standards, the patient contracted an
infection that required continued hospitalization. In addition to suing the hospital, the patient
sued the janitorial service for breach of contract.
, Which of the following statements is most accurate with respect to the breach of contract claim
against the janitorial service? The patient has no claim for breach of contract against the
janitorial service, because she is an incidental beneficiary.
Patient cannot recover because she is an incidental beneficiary rather than an intended third-
party beneficiary. Circumstances fail to indicate that the hospital intended to give the patient
the benefit of the promised performance.
A hotel employed a carefully selected independent contractor to rebuild its swimming pool. The
hotel continued to operate while the pool was being rebuilt. The contract between the hotel
and the contractor required the contractor to indemnify the hotel for any liability arising from
the contractor's negligent acts. A guest of the hotel fell into the excavation, which the
contractor had negligently left unguarded.
In an action by the guest against the hotel to recover for his injuries, what would be the most
likely outcome? Liability, because the hotel had a nondelegable duty to the guest to keep a
safe premises.
Ordinarily, someone who hires an independent contractor wouldn't be vicariously liable for the
contractor's negligence. However, a landowner who holds his land open to the public has a
nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe for business visitors. Such a landowner is liable for
any negligence that causes a guest to be injured by unsafe conditions on the premises, even the
negligence of an independent contractor.
A patient sued a hospital for medical negligence, claiming that a nurse employed by the hospital
failed to administer critical medication prescribed by the patient's treating physician during the
plaintiff's hospitalization. At trial, to prove the nurse's failure to administer the prescribed
medication, the patient has called the medical records librarian, who has authenticated the
hospital's record of the patient's treatment, which contains no entry showing that the
medication in question was administered.
Is the hospital record admissible? Yes, because it is within the hearsay exception covering
the absence of entries in business records.
Guaranteed Success
A driver was traveling along a highway during an unusually heavy rainstorm when the roadway
began to flood. To protect his car from water damage, the driver pulled his car up a steep,
unmarked driveway abutting the highway that led to a homeowner's residence. The driver left
his car parked in the driveway and walked home, intending to return when the floodwater had
subsided. Shortly after the driver started to walk home, the homeowner carefully rolled the car
back down his driveway and parked it on the highway shoulder. The floodwater continued to
rise and caused damage to the driver's car.
If the driver sues the homeowner to recover for damage to the car, is the driver likely to
prevail? Yes, because the drive was privileged to park his car on the homeowner's property.
A landowner has no right to forcibly expel a trespasser or a trespasser's property when the
trespasser was driven by necessity to trespass on his land, and the landowner is liable for any
damage to property of the trespasser that results from an expulsion. If the car had damaged
the homeowner's property, the homeowner could have collected damages from the driver.
A buyer sent a seller an offer to buy 50 tons of cotton of a specified quality. The offer contained
no terms except those specifying the amount and quality of the cotton. The seller then sent an
acknowledgment by fax. The acknowledgment repeated the terms of the buyer's offer and
stated that shipment would occur within five days. Among 12 printed terms on the
acknowledgment was a statement that any dispute about the cotton's quality would be
submitted to arbitration. Neither the buyer nor the seller said anything further about
arbitration. The seller shipped the cotton, and it was accepted by the buyer. A dispute arose
between the buyer and the seller as to the quality of the cotton, and the seller asserted that
the dispute had to be submitted to arbitration. The buyer instead sued the seller in court.
In that suit, which of the following arguments best supports the seller's position that the buyer
must submit the di The provision for arbitration did not materially alter the parties contract.
Buyer's offer was silent as to arbitration, the arbitration provision in the seller's
acknowledgement should be characterized as an additional term. Under UCC 2-207(2), an
additional term is considered a proposal for addition to the contract. 2-207(2) also provides
,that an additional term becomes a term of the parties' contract unless certain specified
circumstances are present. One such circumstance is where an additional term materially alters
the parties' contract. Because none of the other circumstances appear applicable here, the
arbitration provision will be considered a term of the contract if the seller can successfully
argue that the provision did not materially alter the parties' contract.
Congress enacted a statute authorizing the denial of all federal funding to public school districts
in which a specified percentage of the students enrolled in the public schools fail to pass a
national achievement test. According to the terms of the federal statute, the first national
achievement test was scheduled for administration five years from the effective date of the
statute.
After reviewing then-current levels of public school student performance, the officials of a state
became concerned that several of its public school districts would lose their federal funding
after the administration of the first national achievement test. Then-current levels of private
school student performance were substantially higher.
In order to improve the chances of those school districts retaining their federal funding, the
state recently enacted a law that requires all children of elementary and secondary school age
to attend No, because it is not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
Supreme Court precedent establishes that a state law requiring children to attend public
schools infringes on the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children. SC
precedent also establishes that this right is a fundamental aspect of liberty protected by the
due process clause of the 14th amendment. State law that infringes on that right must
therefore undergo strict scrutiny, which requires the state to prove that the law is necessary to
further a compelling state interest. In this case, school cannot satisfy strict scrutiny, because
requiring private school students to attend public schools in order to raise the test scores in
public school districts is not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
A janitorial service contracted in writing with a hospital for a one-year term. Under the terms of
the contract, the janitorial service agreed to clean the hospital daily in accordance with the
hygiene standards of the city's health code. Because the janitorial service did not clean a
patient's room in accordance with the required hygiene standards, the patient contracted an
infection that required continued hospitalization. In addition to suing the hospital, the patient
sued the janitorial service for breach of contract.
, Which of the following statements is most accurate with respect to the breach of contract claim
against the janitorial service? The patient has no claim for breach of contract against the
janitorial service, because she is an incidental beneficiary.
Patient cannot recover because she is an incidental beneficiary rather than an intended third-
party beneficiary. Circumstances fail to indicate that the hospital intended to give the patient
the benefit of the promised performance.
A hotel employed a carefully selected independent contractor to rebuild its swimming pool. The
hotel continued to operate while the pool was being rebuilt. The contract between the hotel
and the contractor required the contractor to indemnify the hotel for any liability arising from
the contractor's negligent acts. A guest of the hotel fell into the excavation, which the
contractor had negligently left unguarded.
In an action by the guest against the hotel to recover for his injuries, what would be the most
likely outcome? Liability, because the hotel had a nondelegable duty to the guest to keep a
safe premises.
Ordinarily, someone who hires an independent contractor wouldn't be vicariously liable for the
contractor's negligence. However, a landowner who holds his land open to the public has a
nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe for business visitors. Such a landowner is liable for
any negligence that causes a guest to be injured by unsafe conditions on the premises, even the
negligence of an independent contractor.
A patient sued a hospital for medical negligence, claiming that a nurse employed by the hospital
failed to administer critical medication prescribed by the patient's treating physician during the
plaintiff's hospitalization. At trial, to prove the nurse's failure to administer the prescribed
medication, the patient has called the medical records librarian, who has authenticated the
hospital's record of the patient's treatment, which contains no entry showing that the
medication in question was administered.
Is the hospital record admissible? Yes, because it is within the hearsay exception covering
the absence of entries in business records.
