MBE COMMON FACT PATTERN -CA BAR
EXAM-GRADED A
Pursuant to a contract, a landscaper performed $30,000 of landscape work for a
homeowner. By coincidence, the homeowner and the landscaper were involved in an
automobile accident that was unrelated to the landscape work. The homeowner was
injured in the accident and sued the landscaper in federal district court for negligence,
seeking $100,000 in damages. The homeowner and the landscaper are citizens of
different states.
May the landscaper assert and maintain a counterclaim against the homeowner for
breach of contract, seeking the $30,000 due under the landscape contract? - ANSWER-
No, because, while the court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the
homeowner's negligence claim and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the
counterclaim, the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
landscaper's contract claim.
A compulsory counterclaim (a claim that arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence as the plaintiff's claim) does not need to meet the jurisdictional amount
requirement for diversity jurisdiction. However, a permissive counterclaim (a claim that
arises out of an unrelated transaction) must meet the jurisdictional amount requirement.
A landowner owned two adjoining parcels of land. The landowner sold the western
parcel to a buyer by a deed that contained the following clause: "Grantee promises for
himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns to not erect a structure over two stories on
the land." The buyer recorded the deed and built a two-story house on the property and
lived there for 30 years, after which he sold the land to a movie star by a deed that did
not contain the structure height restriction. The movie star decided to tear down the
existing house on the land and erect a three-story house. Her neighbor, who purchased
the eastern parcel from the landowner 10 years earlier, discovers that the movie star's
house will be larger than his and files suit to enforce the covenant.
Who will prevail? - ANSWER-The neighbor, because the restrictive covenant runs with
the land.
A covenant at law will run with the land and be enforceable against subsequent
grantees if: (i) the contracting parties intended it to run; (ii) there is privity of estate
between the original promisor and promisee (horizontal privity), as well as between the
promisor and his successor (vertical privity); (iii) the covenant touches and concerns the
property; and (iv) the burdened party has notice of the covenant.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Rational basis standard. when no fundamental right or
suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved - ANSWER-under the rational basis
standard, government action will be upheld unless a challenger can prove that it is not
,rationally related to a legitimate government interest.- the burden of proof on the
challenger.
on the contrary, when compelling interest. if the compelling interest test were applicable,
the burden would be on the government.
A boy planned to rob the local currency exchange, but he needed a getaway car and
somebody to be a lookout. He asked his sister, who immediately refused and warned
him against carrying it out. The boy showed his sister a gun, threatening to shoot her if
she did not go along with the plan. The sister consented to help, and the pair left for the
currency exchange, with the sister driving. When they arrived, the sister left the car
running so that she could get away and contact the police while her brother was inside,
but the boy ordered her to go inside with him. During the robbery attempt, the clerk
pulled out a gun, and the boy and the clerk shot and killed each other.
If the sister is charged with the killing of the store clerk, should the jury find her
criminally liable if it accepts the sister's version of the facts? - ANSWER-No, because
the sister lacked the requisite intent.
liability for felony murder would attach if the killing were committed during the course of
a felony. Thus, the sister would be criminally liable for the killing of the clerk if she were
a co-conspirator or if she were a principal to the underlying felony (the robbery).
However, under the facts, the sister is neither because she lacked the requisite intent.
A young woman who recently graduated from college landed her dream job teaching
kindergarten at the same elementary school she had attended as a child. The young
woman's contract provided that she would be paid $40,000 for the school year, and that
she could be fired only for just cause. Days before the young woman was to begin
teaching, the school's principal fired her, without cause, so that he could hire his cousin
for the job instead. The young woman submitted her resume to an employment agency,
but was so depressed over the loss of her dream job that she turned down a nearby
school's offer for a similar job paying a $30,000 salary, and instead spent the rest of the
school year miserably unemployed.
In an action by the young woman against the elementary school for damages, which of
the following awards is most likely? $40.000- $30.000- $10.000 - ANSWER-$10,000.
When there is a breach of an employment contract by the employer, the standard
measure of the employee's damages is based on the full contract price. However, a
nonbreaching party cannot recover damages that could have been avoided with
reasonable effort. If a breaching employer can prove that a comparable job in the same
locale was available, the damages against the employer will be reduced by the wages
the plaintiff would have received in that comparable job.
The defendant was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and charged with burglary. At the
police station, he telephoned his mother and asked her to come to the station to post
bail. Instead, his mother immediately called the family attorney. In the meantime, the
police had begun questioning the defendant. Although he never told the police to stop
the questioning, his answers were at first vague or clearly unresponsive. During the
, course of the questioning, the family attorney phoned the station and told the police that
she had been hired to represent the defendant and would be there in half an hour. The
police did not inform the defendant of the attorney's call. Ten minutes later, the
defendant admitted to committing the burglary, and signed a statement to that effect
prepared by the police. The attorney arrived a few minutes later and advised the
defendant to remain silent, but he told her that he had already signed a c - ANSWER-
Deny the motion, because the defendant waived his Miranda rights.
A suspect may subsequently waive his rights by making a confession, as long as the
waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Due process requires that for confessions to be admissible, they must be "voluntary,"
based on the totality of the circumstances, and here all of the circumstances indicate
that the defendant's confession was voluntary. However, even a voluntary confession
will be inadmissible if it was obtained in violation of Miranda rights. (D) is therefore a
better choice than (C
A homeowner returned home from work one day to find a robber in her living room.
After a brief physical altercation, the homeowner ran to a bedroom, hid in a closet, and
called 911 on her cell phone. Police officers arrived in less than two minutes and were
able to apprehend the robber as he tried to run out the front door. Once they made sure
he was locked in the police car, one of the officers went to speak with the homeowner
about what had happened. She was still crying and shaking when the officer found her,
and she said, "Thank you for catching him! He punched me in the head as I was running
away!" The robber was charged with robbery and assault. Traumatized, the homeowner
left the country and cannot be traced, despite the efforts of the prosecutor. The
prosecutor intends to call the officer to testify as to the homeowner's statement.
Should the court allow the officer's testimony? - ANSWER-No, because admitting the
homeowner's statement would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
Under the Confrontation Clause, an accused has the right to be confronted by the
witnesses against him.
A pedestrian was struck and seriously injured by a car driven by an intoxicated driver.
The driver had been served several alcoholic drinks by a bartender at a local bar. The
pedestrian sued the bartender in a jurisdiction that does not have a dramshop act.
Is the bartender vicariously liable for the pedestrian's injuries? - ANSWER-No, because
there is no dramshop act in the jurisdiction to impose liability.
At common law, no liability was imposed on vendors of intoxicating beverages for
injuries resulting from the vendee's intoxication, whether the injuries were sustained by
the vendee or by a third person as a result of the vendee's conduct. Many states, in
order to avoid this common law rule, have enacted "dramshop acts." Such acts create a
cause of action in favor of any third person injured by the intoxicated vendee
A homeowner contracted with a local builder to build a wooden deck onto the back of
her house. The contract called for half of the contract price of $20,000 to be paid to the
contractor before he began work and the other half to be paid to him when the job was
completed. The contractor began the work but, partway through the job, he got an offer
for a rush job that paid better and abruptly quit.
EXAM-GRADED A
Pursuant to a contract, a landscaper performed $30,000 of landscape work for a
homeowner. By coincidence, the homeowner and the landscaper were involved in an
automobile accident that was unrelated to the landscape work. The homeowner was
injured in the accident and sued the landscaper in federal district court for negligence,
seeking $100,000 in damages. The homeowner and the landscaper are citizens of
different states.
May the landscaper assert and maintain a counterclaim against the homeowner for
breach of contract, seeking the $30,000 due under the landscape contract? - ANSWER-
No, because, while the court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the
homeowner's negligence claim and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the
counterclaim, the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
landscaper's contract claim.
A compulsory counterclaim (a claim that arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence as the plaintiff's claim) does not need to meet the jurisdictional amount
requirement for diversity jurisdiction. However, a permissive counterclaim (a claim that
arises out of an unrelated transaction) must meet the jurisdictional amount requirement.
A landowner owned two adjoining parcels of land. The landowner sold the western
parcel to a buyer by a deed that contained the following clause: "Grantee promises for
himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns to not erect a structure over two stories on
the land." The buyer recorded the deed and built a two-story house on the property and
lived there for 30 years, after which he sold the land to a movie star by a deed that did
not contain the structure height restriction. The movie star decided to tear down the
existing house on the land and erect a three-story house. Her neighbor, who purchased
the eastern parcel from the landowner 10 years earlier, discovers that the movie star's
house will be larger than his and files suit to enforce the covenant.
Who will prevail? - ANSWER-The neighbor, because the restrictive covenant runs with
the land.
A covenant at law will run with the land and be enforceable against subsequent
grantees if: (i) the contracting parties intended it to run; (ii) there is privity of estate
between the original promisor and promisee (horizontal privity), as well as between the
promisor and his successor (vertical privity); (iii) the covenant touches and concerns the
property; and (iv) the burdened party has notice of the covenant.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Rational basis standard. when no fundamental right or
suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved - ANSWER-under the rational basis
standard, government action will be upheld unless a challenger can prove that it is not
,rationally related to a legitimate government interest.- the burden of proof on the
challenger.
on the contrary, when compelling interest. if the compelling interest test were applicable,
the burden would be on the government.
A boy planned to rob the local currency exchange, but he needed a getaway car and
somebody to be a lookout. He asked his sister, who immediately refused and warned
him against carrying it out. The boy showed his sister a gun, threatening to shoot her if
she did not go along with the plan. The sister consented to help, and the pair left for the
currency exchange, with the sister driving. When they arrived, the sister left the car
running so that she could get away and contact the police while her brother was inside,
but the boy ordered her to go inside with him. During the robbery attempt, the clerk
pulled out a gun, and the boy and the clerk shot and killed each other.
If the sister is charged with the killing of the store clerk, should the jury find her
criminally liable if it accepts the sister's version of the facts? - ANSWER-No, because
the sister lacked the requisite intent.
liability for felony murder would attach if the killing were committed during the course of
a felony. Thus, the sister would be criminally liable for the killing of the clerk if she were
a co-conspirator or if she were a principal to the underlying felony (the robbery).
However, under the facts, the sister is neither because she lacked the requisite intent.
A young woman who recently graduated from college landed her dream job teaching
kindergarten at the same elementary school she had attended as a child. The young
woman's contract provided that she would be paid $40,000 for the school year, and that
she could be fired only for just cause. Days before the young woman was to begin
teaching, the school's principal fired her, without cause, so that he could hire his cousin
for the job instead. The young woman submitted her resume to an employment agency,
but was so depressed over the loss of her dream job that she turned down a nearby
school's offer for a similar job paying a $30,000 salary, and instead spent the rest of the
school year miserably unemployed.
In an action by the young woman against the elementary school for damages, which of
the following awards is most likely? $40.000- $30.000- $10.000 - ANSWER-$10,000.
When there is a breach of an employment contract by the employer, the standard
measure of the employee's damages is based on the full contract price. However, a
nonbreaching party cannot recover damages that could have been avoided with
reasonable effort. If a breaching employer can prove that a comparable job in the same
locale was available, the damages against the employer will be reduced by the wages
the plaintiff would have received in that comparable job.
The defendant was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and charged with burglary. At the
police station, he telephoned his mother and asked her to come to the station to post
bail. Instead, his mother immediately called the family attorney. In the meantime, the
police had begun questioning the defendant. Although he never told the police to stop
the questioning, his answers were at first vague or clearly unresponsive. During the
, course of the questioning, the family attorney phoned the station and told the police that
she had been hired to represent the defendant and would be there in half an hour. The
police did not inform the defendant of the attorney's call. Ten minutes later, the
defendant admitted to committing the burglary, and signed a statement to that effect
prepared by the police. The attorney arrived a few minutes later and advised the
defendant to remain silent, but he told her that he had already signed a c - ANSWER-
Deny the motion, because the defendant waived his Miranda rights.
A suspect may subsequently waive his rights by making a confession, as long as the
waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Due process requires that for confessions to be admissible, they must be "voluntary,"
based on the totality of the circumstances, and here all of the circumstances indicate
that the defendant's confession was voluntary. However, even a voluntary confession
will be inadmissible if it was obtained in violation of Miranda rights. (D) is therefore a
better choice than (C
A homeowner returned home from work one day to find a robber in her living room.
After a brief physical altercation, the homeowner ran to a bedroom, hid in a closet, and
called 911 on her cell phone. Police officers arrived in less than two minutes and were
able to apprehend the robber as he tried to run out the front door. Once they made sure
he was locked in the police car, one of the officers went to speak with the homeowner
about what had happened. She was still crying and shaking when the officer found her,
and she said, "Thank you for catching him! He punched me in the head as I was running
away!" The robber was charged with robbery and assault. Traumatized, the homeowner
left the country and cannot be traced, despite the efforts of the prosecutor. The
prosecutor intends to call the officer to testify as to the homeowner's statement.
Should the court allow the officer's testimony? - ANSWER-No, because admitting the
homeowner's statement would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
Under the Confrontation Clause, an accused has the right to be confronted by the
witnesses against him.
A pedestrian was struck and seriously injured by a car driven by an intoxicated driver.
The driver had been served several alcoholic drinks by a bartender at a local bar. The
pedestrian sued the bartender in a jurisdiction that does not have a dramshop act.
Is the bartender vicariously liable for the pedestrian's injuries? - ANSWER-No, because
there is no dramshop act in the jurisdiction to impose liability.
At common law, no liability was imposed on vendors of intoxicating beverages for
injuries resulting from the vendee's intoxication, whether the injuries were sustained by
the vendee or by a third person as a result of the vendee's conduct. Many states, in
order to avoid this common law rule, have enacted "dramshop acts." Such acts create a
cause of action in favor of any third person injured by the intoxicated vendee
A homeowner contracted with a local builder to build a wooden deck onto the back of
her house. The contract called for half of the contract price of $20,000 to be paid to the
contractor before he began work and the other half to be paid to him when the job was
completed. The contractor began the work but, partway through the job, he got an offer
for a rush job that paid better and abruptly quit.
