MBE Question Set 16| Questions with Correct Answers 100% Verified|
Guaranteed Success
What is the best argument in favor of the daughter's being able to enforce a contract for $5,000
in her favor?
A Statute of Frauds.
B Parol evidence rule.
C The daughter was an intended third-party beneficiary. D The daughter married in reliance
on the promise.
The daughter's best argument to enforce the contract in her favor is that she married in
reliance on the contract (detrimental reliance), although she will probably be unsuccessful.
Here, the daughter was a gratuitous assignee (because she gave no consideration) and her
rights under the contract were revoked. Thus, her strongest argument will be one that nullifies
the revocation. Under the doctrine of detrimental reliance, a promise will be enforced to the
extent necessary to prevent injustice if it was made with a reasonable expectation that it would
induce reliance, and such reliance was in fact induced. The problem with this argument here is
that it is not clear that the daughter relied on the promise to give her $5,000, because she
already had planned to get married. However, none of the other choices is a possible argument,
so (D) is her best choice. (A) would not help her because the Statute of Frauds is a defense to
enforcement of certain contracts when there is no writing, including contracts where the
consideration is marriage. Here the daughter is seeking to enforce the contract, not prevent its
enforcement. (B) is incorrect because the parol evidence rule only prevents the introduction of
prior or contemporaneous oral statements to contradict the terms of an integrated written
contract. Here, the statement that gave the daughter her rights and the one that took them
away were both subsequent oral statements. (C) does not help her because she was not an
intended third-party beneficiary. If a contract between two parties contemplates performance
to a third party, that third party may have rights to enforce the contract. To do so, the third
party must be an intended beneficiary at the time the contract was made (e.g., designated in
the contract). An assignment
,A gang member threatened to kill the defendant unless he robbed a convenience store and
gave the proceeds to the gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that the
defendant kill the clerk to prevent identification. In abject fear of his life, the defendant did
everything that the gang member requested.
If the defendant is arrested and charged with murder and robbery in a common law
jurisdiction, what result?
A The defendant should be convicted of murder and robbery.
B The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery and convicted of murder.
C The defendant should be convicted of robbery, and the killing will be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter.
D The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery, and the killing should be reduced to
voluntary manslaughter. B The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery and convicted
of murder.
The defendant should be convicted of common law murder, but acquitted of the robbery. At
common law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
"Malice aforethought" exists if the defendant has any of the following states of mind: (i) the
intent to kill (express malice); (ii) the intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) a reckless
indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life ("abandoned and malignant heart"); or
(iv) the intent to commit a felony. In the instant case, malice could be found either by the intent
to kill (because the clerk was intentionally killed to prevent identification) or by the intent to
commit a felony (the killing was committed during the course of a robbery). Robbery is an
aggravated form of larceny and consists of the following elements: (i) a taking; (ii) of the
personal property of another; (iii) from the other's person or presence; (iv) by force or
intimidation; (v) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it. Clearly, the elements for
robbery are met here. Thus, at first glance, the defendant has committed both murder and
, robbery. However, the fact pattern also raises the defense of duress. A person is not guilty of an
offense, other than intentional homicide, if he performs an otherwise criminal act under the
reasonable belief that another will imminently inflict death or great bodily harm on him or an
immediate family member if he does not commit the criminal act. In the instant case, the
defendant committed the robbery under duress and thus should be acquitted of that charge,
making (A) incorrect. However, duress would not be effective against a murder charge based on
an intent-to-kill theory, and here the defendant intentionally killed the store clerk under ins
A storeowner properly filed a complaint for breach of contract against a food distributor in
federal district court. After the food distributor timely answered the complaint, the parties
proceeded through discovery, which lasted over 14 months and cost the parties over $200,000
in attorneys' fees and related costs. At the final pretrial conference, the presiding judge
indicated that he did not think much of the merits of the storeowner's claims. As a result, the
storeowner wants to dismiss this case and refile in a different federal court to get a more
sympathetic judge.
How may the storeowner try to achieve this goal?
A File a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and it will likely be granted on the
grounds that the judge is biased against the storeowner's case.
B File a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but it will likely be denied due to the
time and money already invested in the c B File a motion for voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, but it will likely be denied due to the time and money already invested in the case by
the parties and the court.
The storeowner can give up his case voluntarily by way of voluntary dismissal. If the defendant
has answered or filed a motion for summary judgment or there was a previous dismissal, the
plaintiff must file a motion for voluntary dismissal by leave of the court, and the court has the
discretion to grant dismissal on such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. Here,
because the distributor answered the complaint, this motion for voluntary dismissal with leave
of the court was a proper vehicle to attempt to achieve the storeowner's goal; however, due to
Guaranteed Success
What is the best argument in favor of the daughter's being able to enforce a contract for $5,000
in her favor?
A Statute of Frauds.
B Parol evidence rule.
C The daughter was an intended third-party beneficiary. D The daughter married in reliance
on the promise.
The daughter's best argument to enforce the contract in her favor is that she married in
reliance on the contract (detrimental reliance), although she will probably be unsuccessful.
Here, the daughter was a gratuitous assignee (because she gave no consideration) and her
rights under the contract were revoked. Thus, her strongest argument will be one that nullifies
the revocation. Under the doctrine of detrimental reliance, a promise will be enforced to the
extent necessary to prevent injustice if it was made with a reasonable expectation that it would
induce reliance, and such reliance was in fact induced. The problem with this argument here is
that it is not clear that the daughter relied on the promise to give her $5,000, because she
already had planned to get married. However, none of the other choices is a possible argument,
so (D) is her best choice. (A) would not help her because the Statute of Frauds is a defense to
enforcement of certain contracts when there is no writing, including contracts where the
consideration is marriage. Here the daughter is seeking to enforce the contract, not prevent its
enforcement. (B) is incorrect because the parol evidence rule only prevents the introduction of
prior or contemporaneous oral statements to contradict the terms of an integrated written
contract. Here, the statement that gave the daughter her rights and the one that took them
away were both subsequent oral statements. (C) does not help her because she was not an
intended third-party beneficiary. If a contract between two parties contemplates performance
to a third party, that third party may have rights to enforce the contract. To do so, the third
party must be an intended beneficiary at the time the contract was made (e.g., designated in
the contract). An assignment
,A gang member threatened to kill the defendant unless he robbed a convenience store and
gave the proceeds to the gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that the
defendant kill the clerk to prevent identification. In abject fear of his life, the defendant did
everything that the gang member requested.
If the defendant is arrested and charged with murder and robbery in a common law
jurisdiction, what result?
A The defendant should be convicted of murder and robbery.
B The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery and convicted of murder.
C The defendant should be convicted of robbery, and the killing will be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter.
D The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery, and the killing should be reduced to
voluntary manslaughter. B The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery and convicted
of murder.
The defendant should be convicted of common law murder, but acquitted of the robbery. At
common law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
"Malice aforethought" exists if the defendant has any of the following states of mind: (i) the
intent to kill (express malice); (ii) the intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) a reckless
indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life ("abandoned and malignant heart"); or
(iv) the intent to commit a felony. In the instant case, malice could be found either by the intent
to kill (because the clerk was intentionally killed to prevent identification) or by the intent to
commit a felony (the killing was committed during the course of a robbery). Robbery is an
aggravated form of larceny and consists of the following elements: (i) a taking; (ii) of the
personal property of another; (iii) from the other's person or presence; (iv) by force or
intimidation; (v) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it. Clearly, the elements for
robbery are met here. Thus, at first glance, the defendant has committed both murder and
, robbery. However, the fact pattern also raises the defense of duress. A person is not guilty of an
offense, other than intentional homicide, if he performs an otherwise criminal act under the
reasonable belief that another will imminently inflict death or great bodily harm on him or an
immediate family member if he does not commit the criminal act. In the instant case, the
defendant committed the robbery under duress and thus should be acquitted of that charge,
making (A) incorrect. However, duress would not be effective against a murder charge based on
an intent-to-kill theory, and here the defendant intentionally killed the store clerk under ins
A storeowner properly filed a complaint for breach of contract against a food distributor in
federal district court. After the food distributor timely answered the complaint, the parties
proceeded through discovery, which lasted over 14 months and cost the parties over $200,000
in attorneys' fees and related costs. At the final pretrial conference, the presiding judge
indicated that he did not think much of the merits of the storeowner's claims. As a result, the
storeowner wants to dismiss this case and refile in a different federal court to get a more
sympathetic judge.
How may the storeowner try to achieve this goal?
A File a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and it will likely be granted on the
grounds that the judge is biased against the storeowner's case.
B File a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but it will likely be denied due to the
time and money already invested in the c B File a motion for voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, but it will likely be denied due to the time and money already invested in the case by
the parties and the court.
The storeowner can give up his case voluntarily by way of voluntary dismissal. If the defendant
has answered or filed a motion for summary judgment or there was a previous dismissal, the
plaintiff must file a motion for voluntary dismissal by leave of the court, and the court has the
discretion to grant dismissal on such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. Here,
because the distributor answered the complaint, this motion for voluntary dismissal with leave
of the court was a proper vehicle to attempt to achieve the storeowner's goal; however, due to
