Blog

Which culture is an example of a horticultural society?

The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries suffered when the defendant’s car struck the plaintiff as she was crossing a busy intersection. The plaintiff planned to have a bystander who had witnessed the accident testify on her behalf, but he died prior to trial. At trial, the plaintiff called the wife of the bystander to testify that, although she had been facing the other way, she had heard her husband exclaim, “My God, the woman was crossing on the green light!” Over objection, the statement was admitted as an excited utterance. The defendant now wishes to call the bystander’s friend, who is prepared to testify that, a few hours after the accident, the bystander said to him: “You know that accident I saw this afternoon? The driver didn’t run a red light. The light was yellow.” Should the friend’s testimony be admitted over the plaintiff’s objection?

A state statute provides as follows: Any judgment properly filed shall, for 10 years from the date of filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered. A landowner conveyed a lot in that state to  his aunt, who had had a judgment lien recorded against her two years earlier in the county in which the land was located. One year later, the aunt conveyed the property to a buyer by general warranty deed. The deed did not mention the lien, but the buyer was aware of it. Two years later, the buyer conveyed the property to a creditor by special warranty deed. The creditor was not aware of the lien and her deed also made no mention of it. One year after that transaction, the creditor conveyed the property to a developer by general warranty deed. The developer’s deed did not mention the lien but the developer was aware of it. The next year, the developer entered into a contract to convey the property to an entrepreneur. The entrepreneur’s title search disclosed the judgment lien against the aunt, and the entrepreneur refused to proceed with the transaction because title was not marketable. The developer brought an action against the entrepreneur for specific performance and was denied relief. He then brought an action against the aunt, the buyer, and the creditor for breach of warranty. Assuming that all transactions concerning the property were promptly and properly recorded, and that the party holding the judgment lien has taken no action as of yet to enforce it, which parties, if any, will be liable to the developer?

A retail store ordered 100 women’s swimsuits at $10 each, as advertised in the catalog of a swimwear manufacturer. The manufacturer shipped 40 swimsuits to the store, along with a letter stating in relevant part: “We have shipped you 40 swimsuits at $10 each in response to your recent order. Please remit $400. Be informed that limited inventory will prevent us from being able to ship any additional suits at this time or at any time during this year’s beach season.” The store took the 40 suits and began to sell them. The store immediately sought an alternate supplier of swimsuits. The best price it could obtain was $11 per suit from a different company. The store ordered, received, accepted, and paid for 60 suits at $11 each from the other company. The store has refused to pay the manufacturer the $400, and the manufacturer has sued for payment. What is the manufacturer entitled to recover?

The defendant is being tried for murder in the bludgeoning death of his brother. The defendant denies any involvement in the crime. He calls a witness to the stand, who testifies that, in his opinion, the defendant is a nonviolent, peaceable man. Which of the following, if offered by the prosecution, would most likely be admissible?

To fight drug abuse, a state enacted a statute forbidding the selling of model airplane glue  to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. The statute also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Neither the legislature nor the courts of the state have abolished the common law tort defense of assumption of the risk. The owner of a hobby shop in the state sold a large tube of airplane glue to a 15-year-old boy who reasonably appeared to be at least 18 years old. The boy had received drug education in his school, as mandated by the statute, including coverage of the dangers of glue sniffing. The boy understood the anti-drug instruction, but  he wanted to experience it for himself. The boy sniffed the glue repeatedly and suffered perma- nent brain damage. If the boy’s parents file suit on the boy’s behalf against the store owner, for whom is the court likely to rule?

For a number of years, a leasing company has been in charge of leasing the luxury skyboxes at a local basketball stadium. During this time, it annually sent area businesses personalized “invitations” to lease skyboxes for the season. The invitations, which were always sent out several months before each season began, contained detailed price terms and language stating that the deadline for responding was 10 weeks before the start of the season and that all leases were subject to the approval of the management of the leasing company. A local advertising agency had always responded to their invitation immediately by registered mail because they found it very worth- while to lease a skybox to entertain their clients. During the five years that they had responded affirmatively to the invitation, they never received any additional communications from the leasing company regarding approval, but the tickets and an invoice would arrive about a week before the season began. Several months before the current season, the advertising agency received and immediately responded to its invitation. Two weeks before the season began, a stunning trade brought the league’s most popular star to the city’s basket- ball team, prompting a dramatic increase in the demand for tickets. A few days later, the advertising agency, which had already scheduled in a number of clients to attend games in its skybox, received a notice from the leasing company stating that management had not approved the agency’s lease of the skybox for this season. In a separate announcement to all area businesses, the leasing company announced that all available skyboxes would be leased for three- or five-year terms, and that an auction of the leases would be conducted if the demand exceeded the supply. The advertising agency decided that it was not financially feasible to commit itself to anything longer than a one-year lease. It sent a letter to the leasing company, stating that a contract was created between the parties and that the leasing company will be in breach if it does not perform. Is the advertising agency correct in its assertions?

A landowner owned a large tract of mineral- rich land in a sparsely populated area. He entered into a lease with a prospector who was interested in developing the land for mining. The term of the lease was two years and gave the prospector an option to buy the property at any time after the first year. The prospector did not record the lease. Six months later, the prospector left the land for a period of time to prospect in Mexico, leaving no goods on the land that would identify him. The landowner then conveyed the property in fee simple to a developer, who had inspected the property while the prospector was in Mexico and was unaware of the prior transac- tion. The developer did not immediately record her deed. After three months in Mexico, the prospector returned to the land and encountered the developer. A statute in the jurisdiction provides, in part: “No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded.” If the developer brings an action to quiet title, how should the court rule?

A vintner whose winery building burned down sued a supply company, alleging that  two large tanks that he had purchased from the supply company a month earlier had overheated and caused the fire. The supply company’s defense is that the fire was caused by the vintner’s failure to install modern electrical wiring in the rather old building. At trial, the vintner seeks to establish that the tanks overheated by testifying that, two weeks after the tanks were installed, a supply company employee came to inspect the installation, and the vintner said to him, “You know, sometimes these tanks get awful hot.” Should the vintner be permitted to so testify?

Seventeen years ago, a lumberjack purchased Lot 1, which is adjacent to Lot 2 and Lot 3. A public road runs along the far side of Lots 2 and 3. At the time of the purchase, he asked the owner of Lot 2 to grant him an easement to use the paved way across Lot 2 to haul logs to the public road. The owner of Lot 2 agreed. The lumberjack paid nothing for the easement, and the deed granting the easement was properly recorded. For six months, the lumberjack hauled logs across Lot 2. The lumberjack then negotiated with the owner of Lot 3, and she granted him a license to haul logs on the gravel road across Lot 3 to the public road, a shorter distance than the route across Lot 2. The lumberjack paid the owner of Lot 3 a modest annual fee for this privilege. Since that time, the lumberjack has never used the paved way across Lot 2 for any purpose. Six months ago, the owner of Lot 2 conveyed the lot to a buyer, and two weeks ago, the buyer had a chain-link fence built around the perimeter of Lot 2, which blocked the lumber- jack’s access to the paved way crossing Lot 2. One week ago, acting within her rights, the owner of Lot 3 revoked the lumberjack’s license to use the gravel road crossing Lot 3. The next day, the lumberjack demanded that the buyer of Lot 2 remove the chain-link fence because of the easement, but the buyer refused. The state has a 15-year prescription and adverse possession period. Which of the following best represents the lumberjack’s rights under the circumstances?