NCBE National Conference of Bar Examiners Multistate Bar Examination -2024 Online MBE Practice Exam 3 100 actual 100% verified questions and well explained answers

NCBE National Conference of Bar Examiners Multistate Bar Examination -2024 Online MBE Practice Exam 3 100 actual 100% verified questions and well explained answers Question # 1 - Torts A homeowner was using a six-foot stepladder to clean the furnace in his home. The homeowner broke his arm when he slipped and fell from the ladder. The furnace had no warnings or instructions on how it was to be cleaned. In a suit by the homeowner against the manufacturer of the furnace to recover for his injury, is the homeowner likely to prevail? (A) No, because the danger of falling from a ladder is obvious. Correct. A manufacturer has no obligation to warn against obvious dangers. There appears to be nothing unique to the furnace that would add to the ordinary dangers of working on a ladder. (B) No, because the homeowner should have hired a professional to clean the furnace. (C) Yes, because the furnace did not have a ladder attached to it for cleaning purposes. (D) Yes, because the lack of warnings or instructions for how to clean the furnace made the furnace defective. Question # 2 - Real Property A landlord and a tenant orally agreed to a commercial tenancy for a term of six months beginning on July 1. Rent was to be paid by the first day of each month, and the tenant paid the first month’s rent at the time of the agreement. When the tenant arrived at the leased premises on July 1, the tenant learned that the previous tenant had not vacated the premises at the end of her lease term on May 31 and did not intend to vacate. The tenant then successfully sued the previous tenant for possession. The tenant did not inform the landlord of the eviction action until after the tenant received possession. The tenant then sued the landlord, claiming damages for that portion of the lease period during which the tenant was not in possession. If the court finds for the landlord, what will be the most likely explanation? (A) By suing the previous tenant for possession, the tenant elected that remedy in lieu of a suit against the landlord. (B) The landlord had delivered the legal right of possession to the tenant. Correct. The landlord granted the legal right of possession to the tenant, which means that neither the landlord nor anyone holding of the landlord prevented the tenant from going into possession at the commencement of the lease term. The previous tenant’s lease term had ended before the new lease term began. The previous tenant then became a trespasser and was not holding of the landlord. The court found for the landlord, and thus there is no rule in this jurisdiction that the landlord need also put the tenant into actual possession. (C) The tenant failed to timely vacate as required to sue for constructive eviction. (D) The tenant had not notified the landlord before bringing the eviction action. Question # 3 - Constitutional Law A state law provides that a person who has been divorced may not marry again unless he or she is current on all child-support payments. A woman who was refused a marriage license pursuant to this law sued the appropriate state officials. What standard should the court apply in reviewing the constitutionality of this law? (A) The state must show that the law is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Correct. U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishes that an individual’s decision to marry is a fundamental right, and that therefore laws that unduly burden a decision to marry trigger strict judicial scrutiny. This strict scrutiny standard obligates the state to prove that the law is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. (B) The state must show that the law is substantially related to an important government interest. (C) The woman must show that the law serves no important public purpose. (D) The woman must show that the legislature did not have a rational basis for enacting the law. Question # 4 - Contracts Before putting her home up for sale, a homeowner painted the living room ceiling to conceal major water damage caused by a leaking roof that had not yet been repaired. On the first day the home was offered for sale, the homeowner gave a buyer a personal tour. The homeowner made no statements at all regarding the water damage or the roof. Without discovering the water damage or the leaking roof and without consulting a lawyer, the buyer immediately agreed in writing to buy the home for $200,000. Before the closing date, the buyer discovered the water damage and the leaking roof. The cost of repair was estimated at $22,000. The buyer has refused to go through with the purchase. If the homeowner sues the buyer for breach of contract, is the homeowner likely to prevail?