Blog

Short Answer QuestionsProvide concise but complete responses to the following questions. Answers need not be more than five sentences.

Define ex post facto laws as articulated in Calder v. Bull (1798).

At 2:00 a.m., in the small town of Red Valley, Derek—a 32-year-old man recently discharged from a psychiatric hospital—begins pacing outside Maya’s home. Derek has long believed that Maya, his former coworker, is part of a secret organization conspiring to destroy his memory through “electromagnetic waves.” Earlier that day, Derek stopped taking his prescribed antipsychotic medication because he felt it was “poison.” Holding a gas can, Derek mutters to himself repeatedly: “Fire will reveal the truth.” Derek pours gasoline along the side of Maya’s detached garage and lights it. The detached garage was about 500 feet from Maya’s home. Flames quickly spread. As the fire grows, Derek smiles and walks toward the front door to “warn” Maya that her home “needs to be cleansed.” Before he reaches the door, Marcos, a jogger passing by, sees the fire, runs toward Derek yelling, “What are you doing?” Derek, startled, swings the empty gas can at Marcos, striking him in the face and fracturing his orbital bone. Marcos falls, badly injured. Hearing the shouting, Maya opens her front door. Derek, agitated, shouts: “They told you to melt my mind!” and charges at her. Maya darts back inside and tries to shut the door, but Derek forces it partly open. As Maya struggles to close it, Derek grabs her forearm with both hands and twists violently. The torque crushes several bones in her hand and permanently damages two fingers, which later must be partially amputated. Before Derek can enter the home, police arrive. Derek collapses to the ground and screams, “The fire cleanses! You can’t stop them!” He is arrested and later undergoes psychiatric evaluation. Two psychiatrists diagnose him with untreated schizophrenia marked by persistent delusions; one opines he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the fire, while the other believes he understood that setting a fire was illegal but felt compelled by his delusion. Discuss all crimes Derek may be charged with and discuss all defenses.

On January 1, 2025, Giant Co. purchased the following investments for cash: 18,000 shares Rock Co. stock $30,000 35,000 shares Boulder Co. stock $350,000 Both Rock and Boulder have 100,000 common shares outstanding. During 2025, Rock and Boulder had the following information: Net Income Cash Dividends per Share Market Price per Share at 12/31/25 Rock Co. $250,000 $0.25 $1.50 Boulder Co. $500,000 $0.45 $10.70 Instructions: How should each of these investments be accounted for? Explain. For each investment, journalize the following transactions for Giant Co., assuming a December 31 year-end: Purchase of the investments on January 1, 2025. Dividends received from the investments during 2025. Any adjustment for net income earned by the investment. Any adjustment for the investment’s year-end market price. Assume the fair value adjustment account had a $4,000 credit balance prior to any adjustment.

On March 1, Uncle Art mailed a letter to his adult nephew, Neil, that stated: “I am thinking of selling my car, which you have seen and ridden in. I would consider taking $5,000 for it.” On March 3, Neil mailed the following response: “I will buy your car for $5,000 cash.” Uncle Art received this letter on March 5 and on March 6 mailed a note that stated: “It’s a deal.” On March 7, before Neil had received the letter of March 6, he phoned Uncle Art to report that he no longer wanted to buy the car because his driver’s license had been suspended. Which of the following statements concerning this exchange is accurate?

Lando and Oscar, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at a country club. Lando wrote and signed the following letter, sent to Oscar by United States mail on Friday, October 8: “I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy yours for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.” Oscar replied in a signed writing by mail the following day: “I accept your offer and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.” Oscar’s letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Lando until November 10. Lando had bought another motorcycle from Max, a mutual friend, for $1,050 a few hours before. Max saw Oscar at the country club on November 11 and told him that he had sold his motorcycle to Lando the previous day for $1,050, and asked Oscar if he would consider selling his bike to him for $950. Oscar replied, “I’ll let you know in a few days.” On November 12, Oscar took his motorcycle to Lando’s residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Lando was asleep and did not answer his doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Lando then rejected Oscar’s bike on the grounds that he had already bought Max’s bike.In a lawsuit by Oscar against Lando for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Oscar’s letter of October 9?

Lando and Oscar, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at a country club. Lando wrote and signed the following letter, sent to Oscar by United States mail on Friday, October 8: “I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy yours for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.” Oscar replied in a signed writing by mail the following day: “I accept your offer and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.” Oscar’s letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Lando until November 10. Lando had bought another motorcycle from Max, a mutual friend, for $1,050 a few hours before. Max saw Oscar at the country club on November 11 and told him that he had sold his motorcycle to Lando the previous day for $1,050, and asked Oscar if he would consider selling his bike to him for $950. Oscar replied, “I’ll let you know in a few days.” On November 12, Oscar took his motorcycle to Lando’s residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Lando was asleep and did not answer his doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Lando then rejected Oscar’s bike on the grounds that he had already bought Max’s bike.What is the probable legal effect of Max’s conversation with Oscar and the report that he (Max) had sold his motorcycle to Lando on November 10?

On June 1, Cattle Rancher Calvin offered to sell his ranch to Derrick Dairy Farmer for $250,000. Derrick Dairy Farmer paid Cattle Rancher Calvin $5,000 to hold the offer open for a period of 30 days. On June 10, Derrick Dairy Farmer wrote to Cattle Rancher Calvin, telling him that he could not pay more than $200,000 for the ranch, and that if he would not agree to accept that amount, he would not go through with the deal. Derrick Dairy Farmer received no reply from Cattle Rancher Calvin. On June 29, Derrick Dairy Farmer mailed a letter to Cattle Rancher Calvin telling him that he accepted his offer to sell the ranch and enclosed a check for $250,000. Cattle Rancher Calvin received this letter on July 5. Has a contract been formed between the parties for the sale of the ranch?

On March 1, South Coast Apartment Complex (SCAC) received a letter from Brrrr, an air conditioner retailer, offering to sell 1,200 window air conditioners suitable for the apartments. The offer stated that it would remain open until March 20, but the acceptance must be received on or before that date. On March 16, SCAC posted a letter of acceptance. On March 17, Brrrr telegraphed SCAC to advise that it was revoking the offer. The telegram reached SCAC on March 17, but SCAC’s letter did not arrive at Brrrr’s address until March 21.As of March 22, which of the following is a correct statement?

Sasha borrowed $10,000 from Morgan to finance a small construction job under a contract with Esther, a homeowner. Sasha gave Morgan a writing that stated, “Any money I receive from Esther will be paid immediately to Morgan, regardless of any demands from other creditors.” Sasha died after completing the job but before Esther paid. Morgan demanded that Esther pay the $10,000 due to Sasha directly to Morgan. Esther refused, saying that she would pay directly to Sasha’s estate everything that she owed Sasha.Is Morgan likely to succeed in an action against Esther for $10,000?