Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:34 pm

I always see users asking for clarifications of questions in differents threads and I think that question's explanations/clarification/doubts need their own thread. So feel free to post here all your doubts about a particular multiple choice question. I'll start:

Company invites different contractors to bid for a construction project, to use in a main contract job. One contractor says "I'll bid if you agree to award me the project if I enter the lowest bid and you get the main contract job". Company accepts. The contractor spent time and money in preparing his bid. Later, the contractor enters the lowest bid, the company uses the lowest bid and is awarded the main contract job. The company must give the contractor the construction project because:

A) the contractor gave consideration for the company's conditional promise to award the project to the contractor
B) the contractor detrimentally relied on the company's conditional promise in preparing his bid
C) the company has a duty to award the project to the contractor because he won the bid
D) the company has implied duty of fair dealing and good faith with all the contractors
Spoiler:
A
Why? I just don't get it.
Last edited by KernKraft on Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

FinallyPassedTheBar
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by FinallyPassedTheBar » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:20 am

Each party gave something that they were not otherwise obligated to give.

The contractor placed a bid in return for the company's promise. Initially, the contractor was not obligated to place a bid, and the company was not obligated to accept any bid. But since they bargained for each other's performance, a contract was formed. That's consideration.

FinallyPassedTheBar
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by FinallyPassedTheBar » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:21 am

What were the other answer choices by the way?

I have a feeling one of the answer choices may have mentioned detrimental reliance because of this line: "The contractor spent time and money in preparing his bid." I think that's a trap answer if it was indeed listed as a choice.

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by KernKraft » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:07 pm

FinallyPassedTheBar wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:21 am
What were the other answer choices by the way?

I have a feeling one of the answer choices may have mentioned detrimental reliance because of this line: "The contractor spent time and money in preparing his bid." I think that's a trap answer if it was indeed listed as a choice.
Exactly, one mentioned detrimental reliance and that's probably what confused me. That, and the fact that it seemed a pre-existing duty to award the project to who wins the bid (because I wrongly assumed that the parties entered the contract already, but in fact they did not).

[edit: I added them in my previous post]

Thank you for the clarification, it really helped. Consideration still eludes me sometimes.

FinallyPassedTheBar
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by FinallyPassedTheBar » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:57 pm

KernKraft wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:07 pm
FinallyPassedTheBar wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:21 am
What were the other answer choices by the way?

I have a feeling one of the answer choices may have mentioned detrimental reliance because of this line: "The contractor spent time and money in preparing his bid." I think that's a trap answer if it was indeed listed as a choice.
Exactly, one mentioned detrimental reliance and that's probably what confused me. That, and the fact that it seemed a pre-existing duty to award the project to who wins the bid (because I wrongly assumed that the parties entered the contract already, but in fact they did not).

[edit: I added them in my previous post]

Thank you for the clarification, it really helped. Consideration still eludes me sometimes.

Sure no problem. I am glad I could be of help.


After you listed the answer choices though, I found myself very tempted to chose C. Although I think A is still the better answer, I cannot figure out why C is wrong. Does it turn on the word "won"...as in C is wrong because the contractor did not really "win" the bids, he just made the lowest bid? If that's the reasoning, I think that's a pretty flimsy explanation.

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by KernKraft » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:39 am

FinallyPassedTheBar wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:57 pm
Sure no problem. I am glad I could be of help.

After you listed the answer choices though, I found myself very tempted to chose C. Although I think A is still the better answer, I cannot figure out why C is wrong. Does it turn on the word "won"...as in C is wrong because the contractor did not really "win" the bids, he just made the lowest bid? If that's the reasoning, I think that's a pretty flimsy explanation.
That's the answer I chose too... I think that C would have been right if the two parties entered the contract already. Instead here, they hadn't entered the contract yet. It's like it went down like this:
Company: "Hey, do you want to enter a contract with me?"
Contractor: "Sure, so long as if I enter the lowest bid you award me the project" [which is the contractor's consideration]

It's really confusing because the dumbass contractor is basically saying "I'll enter the contract only if you do what you are supposed to do if I enter the contract (which is awarding the project to the lowest bid)". So it really sounds like a pre-existing duty if the parties had already an agreement. Instead they had no agreement before, so it counts as consideration. I'm honestly not sure about the explanation but I can't see another possibility. They really split hairs...

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 5395
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by pancakes3 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 am

the short explanation is that A is the only "contract" answer. B is equity, C is torts, and D is UCC.

FinallyPassedTheBar
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by FinallyPassedTheBar » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:31 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 am
the short explanation is that A is the only "contract" answer. B is equity, C is torts, and D is UCC.
But the call of the question does not reference contracts. Rather, it says: "The company must give the contractor the construction project because...". Why would a contract answer be more appropriate than an torts answer?

If the call of the questions said something like: "There is a valid contract between contractor and company because...", I'd agree a contracts answer would be more appropriate than the others.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 5395
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by pancakes3 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:45 pm

FinallyPassedTheBar wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:31 pm
pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 am
the short explanation is that A is the only "contract" answer. B is equity, C is torts, and D is UCC.
But the call of the question does not reference contracts. Rather, it says: "The company must give the contractor the construction project because...". Why would a contract answer be more appropriate than an torts answer?

If the call of the questions said something like: "There is a valid contract between contractor and company because...", I'd agree a contracts answer would be more appropriate than the others.
do you see a tort in the fact pattern?

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by KernKraft » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:27 pm

Ok this is a tricky torts one:

Two drivers are engaging in an illegal street race. They are both experienced drivers and driving very carefully, although above the speed limit. Driver 1's tire explodes, she loses control of the car and hits a pedestrian. Pedestrian sues Driver 2 for injuries because Driver 1 is insolvent. Will Pedestrian prevail?

a) no, because Driver 2 did not cause the injury
b) yes, because both drivers were jointly engaging in a dangerous activity
c) no, because Driver 2 was driving carefully
d) yes, because Driver 2 was driving negligently
Spoiler:
Correct answer: (b). I don't understand why. I would get it if it was a criminal law question (accomplice laibility), but as a tort question I don't. I don't even understand what rule they are testing. I responded (a) because I applied the substantial factor test (negligence/causation/merged causes) which says that the Ds would both be liable if they both substantially contributed to the injury... What does Driver 2 have to do with a tire that explodes in another car?!

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 5395
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by pancakes3 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:38 pm

KernKraft wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:27 pm
Ok this is a tricky torts one:

Two drivers are engaging in an illegal street race. They are both experienced drivers and driving very carefully, although above the speed limit. Driver 1's tire explodes, she loses control of the car and hits a pedestrian. Pedestrian sues Driver 2 for injuries because Driver 1 is insolvent. Will Pedestrian prevail?

a) no, because Driver 2 did not cause the injury
b) yes, because both drivers were jointly engaging in a dangerous activity
c) no, because Driver 2 was driving carefully
d) yes, because Driver 2 was driving negligently
Spoiler:
Correct answer: (b). I don't understand why. I would get it if it was a criminal law question (accomplice laibility), but as a tort question I don't. I don't even understand what rule they are testing. I responded (a) because I applied the substantial factor test (negligence/causation/merged causes) which says that the Ds would both be liable if they both substantially contributed to the injury... What does Driver 2 have to do with a tire that explodes in another car?!
spot that this is about a street race.
spot that street race is illegal and probably an abnormally dangerous activity
remember that harms resulting from abnormally dangerous activities requires strict liability
reason out that this question is testing on abnormally dangerous activities
eliminate C and D as theories of negligence
eliminate A as it focuses on the driver and not the activity. the activity of racing is the proximate and but-for cause of the harm.

it is a tricky question but now that you've seen it, you'll learn it.

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by KernKraft » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:31 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:38 pm
spot that this is about a street race.
spot that street race is illegal and probably an abnormally dangerous activity
remember that harms resulting from abnormally dangerous activities requires strict liability
reason out that this question is testing on abnormally dangerous activities
eliminate C and D as theories of negligence
eliminate A as it focuses on the driver and not the activity. the activity of racing is the proximate and but-for cause of the harm.

it is a tricky question but now that you've seen it, you'll learn it.
Wow, that makes sense now. It didn't even cross my mind it could test abnormally dangerous activities because usually those questions are about toxic waste coming from power plant, toxic gases coming from fumigating a house, and other non-illegal activities. Thanks man, really helpful explanation.

FinallyPassedTheBar
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations

Post by FinallyPassedTheBar » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:50 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:45 pm
FinallyPassedTheBar wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:31 pm
pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 am
the short explanation is that A is the only "contract" answer. B is equity, C is torts, and D is UCC.
But the call of the question does not reference contracts. Rather, it says: "The company must give the contractor the construction project because...". Why would a contract answer be more appropriate than an torts answer?

If the call of the questions said something like: "There is a valid contract between contractor and company because...", I'd agree a contracts answer would be more appropriate than the others.
do you see a tort in the fact pattern?
Well just because answer choice C mentions "duty" doesn't necessarily make it a tort answer.

onlyoncemore
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:24 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by onlyoncemore » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm

Halp.

A marijuana farmer(F) had been missing for several months. The police received an anonymous tip that a rival farmer (RF) had buried the missing F in a hillside about 200yards from the RF's farmhouse. Police went to RF's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. they also searched the adjacent fileds on the RF's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barned wire and discoered clothing that bellowed to F hanging on a scarecrow. RF observed their discovery and began shooting. The police returned the fire. RF dashed to his pickup truck to escape. Unable to start it, he fled across a field toward the barn. An officer tackled him just as he entered the barn.

As RF attempted to get up, officer pinned his arm behind his back. Another officer threatened, "Tell us what you did with F or we'll lock you up and you'll see your family on welfare." RF responded that he killed F in a fight but didn't report the incident because he didn't want authorities to enter his land and discover his weed crops. Instead he buried F behind the barn. RF was thereafter charged with murder. If the rival farmer moves to suppress his administration about killing his neighbor, the court should,
  1. grant the motion, because the RF didn't voluntarily waive his right to silence
  2. grant the motion, because the statement was product of warrantless entry and search of the RF's farm
  3. deny motion, because officer was in hot pursuit when he questioned RF
  4. deny motion, because RF was questioned during a police emergency search.
Spoiler:
Answer b.

I had it narrowed to A/B pretty quickly, but I chose B>A because in my understanding, open field doctrine is a warrantless search of area outside a property owner's curtilage (curtilage being the area around the house, which homeowner has taken steps to conceal from public) - includes aerial view. Here, the RF had taken steps to put barbed wire around his property - i think reasonably infer-able that he wanted to keep people out. And the police had to cut through the barbed wire to get onto the property. How is this not a warrantless entry > fruit of illegality > thereby inadmissible?

User avatar
RespondeatInferior
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:16 am

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by RespondeatInferior » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:23 pm

onlyoncemore wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm
Halp.

A marijuana farmer(F) had been missing for several months. The police received an anonymous tip that a rival farmer (RF) had buried the missing F in a hillside about 200yards from the RF's farmhouse. Police went to RF's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. they also searched the adjacent fileds on the RF's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barned wire and discoered clothing that bellowed to F hanging on a scarecrow. RF observed their discovery and began shooting. The police returned the fire. RF dashed to his pickup truck to escape. Unable to start it, he fled across a field toward the barn. An officer tackled him just as he entered the barn.

As RF attempted to get up, officer pinned his arm behind his back. Another officer threatened, "Tell us what you did with F or we'll lock you up and you'll see your family on welfare." RF responded that he killed F in a fight but didn't report the incident because he didn't want authorities to enter his land and discover his weed crops. Instead he buried F behind the barn. RF was thereafter charged with murder. If the rival farmer moves to suppress his administration about killing his neighbor, the court should,
  1. grant the motion, because the RF didn't voluntarily waive his right to silence
  2. grant the motion, because the statement was product of warrantless entry and search of the RF's farm
  3. deny motion, because officer was in hot pursuit when he questioned RF
  4. deny motion, because RF was questioned during a police emergency search.
Spoiler:
Answer b.

I had it narrowed to A/B pretty quickly, but I chose B>A because in my understanding, open field doctrine is a warrantless search of area outside a property owner's curtilage (curtilage being the area around the house, which homeowner has taken steps to conceal from public) - includes aerial view. Here, the RF had taken steps to put barbed wire around his property - i think reasonably infer-able that he wanted to keep people out. And the police had to cut through the barbed wire to get onto the property. How is this not a warrantless entry > fruit of illegality > thereby inadmissible?
So wait, the answer was or wasn't answer choice B?

I picked A because it sounds like a fishy way of wording the miranda issue at play here. It's inadmissible because he didn't get his miranda rights. If he got his miranda rights, he could then voluntarily waive his right to remain silent by blabbing stuff out. Thus answer choice A is right (IMO) in that "we're trying to trick you" bullshitty way, he didn't voluntarily waive cause he didn't get his rights read.

Cops didn't need a warrant for the arrest because cops had probable cause to believe he committed a felony (anonymous tip about him burying neighbor, he also shot at them so that's a twofer) and they didn't need a warrant for where they were at because 4a protections didn't apply.

4a protections protect against 1. warrantless search of a place w/reasonable expectation of privacy, 2. physical intrusion on constitutionally protected area. Curtilage 4a protections is a four factor test. (1) How close to home to the curtilege (2) was it enclosed (3) how was it being used ("domestic" in nature?), (4) what steps taken to protect from passing observation.

So my argument against it being curtilage protected by 4a rights is 1. its real far from the house, 2. you can see through a barbed wire fence, 3. area not being used for domestic purposes.

So not B.

It's not C because hot pursuit covers their ass for following him into the barn (assuming barn even had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is arguable also), and would cover any stuff they found, but it doesn't cover not giving Miranda rights.

Not D. because an emergency search provides a situation for a warrantless search, but again doesn't have anything to do with statement during an arrest.

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:09 pm

RespondeatInferior wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:23 pm
onlyoncemore wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm
chose B>A because [...] How is this not a warrantless entry > fruit of illegality > thereby inadmissible?
So wait, the answer was or wasn't answer choice B?

I picked A because it sounds like a fishy way of wording the miranda issue at play here. It's inadmissible because he didn't get his miranda rights. If he got his miranda rights, he could then voluntarily waive his right to remain silent by blabbing stuff out. Thus answer choice A is right (IMO) in that "we're trying to trick you" bullshitty way, he didn't voluntarily waive cause he didn't get his rights read.

Cops didn't need a warrant for the arrest because cops had probable cause to believe he committed a felony (anonymous tip about him burying neighbor, he also shot at them so that's a twofer) and they didn't need a warrant for where they were at because 4a protections didn't apply.

4a protections protect against 1. warrantless search of a place w/reasonable expectation of privacy, 2. physical intrusion on constitutionally protected area. Curtilage 4a protections is a four factor test. (1) How close to home to the curtilege (2) was it enclosed (3) how was it being used ("domestic" in nature?), (4) what steps taken to protect from passing observation.

So my argument against it being curtilage protected by 4a rights is 1. its real far from the house, 2. you can see through a barbed wire fence, 3. area not being used for domestic purposes.

So not B.

It's not C because hot pursuit covers their ass for following him into the barn (assuming barn even had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is arguable also), and would cover any stuff they found, but it doesn't cover not giving Miranda rights.

Not D. because an emergency search provides a situation for a warrantless search, but again doesn't have anything to do with statement during an arrest.
I chose B too but still not clear which one is the right answer.

I mean, it looks like the farmer is in custody, so they should have mirandized him, right? So A doesn't sound wrong. But at the same time, they got in the place without a warrant, so the confession is not admissible probably.

But now the more I think about it, the more it's like the cops could get in because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in there (you could see through the wire), and once in there there was an emergency (farmer started to shoot) and they were authorized to arrest the farmer (even with no warrant) so what he said would have been admissible if it wasn't for the Miranda violation (so, A). Very annoying question indeed.

onlyoncemore
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:24 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by onlyoncemore » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:32 am

KernKraft wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:09 pm
RespondeatInferior wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:23 pm
onlyoncemore wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm
chose B>A because [...] How is this not a warrantless entry > fruit of illegality > thereby inadmissible?
Ah shit I didn't even see my typo - sorry about that guys. The answer is A.

@RespondeatInferior I see. The "screen from public view" requirement must've slipped from me in the last few weeks. I thought if the person had taken steps to keep the public out, that was enough. Good to know.

So if I had know that, B would've been out, leaving A. Even though I'd still not be sure 100% about it, it's the only one left after process of elimination so that'd be it. Got it - thanks!

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 5395
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by pancakes3 » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:23 am

onlyoncemore wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:32 am
KernKraft wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:09 pm
RespondeatInferior wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:23 pm
onlyoncemore wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm
chose B>A because [...] How is this not a warrantless entry > fruit of illegality > thereby inadmissible?
Ah shit I didn't even see my typo - sorry about that guys. The answer is A.

@RespondeatInferior I see. The "screen from public view" requirement must've slipped from me in the last few weeks. I thought if the person had taken steps to keep the public out, that was enough. Good to know.

So if I had know that, B would've been out, leaving A. Even though I'd still not be sure 100% about it, it's the only one left after process of elimination so that'd be it. Got it - thanks!
uh... no. assuming the question meant "suppress his *admission* about killing his neighbor"

this isn't a "3 wrongs, 1 right" question but a "2 right, 1 more right, super frustrating when you're studying" question.

cops were definitely not allowed to be INSIDE THE BARBED WIRE. that's not curtilage, that's someone's private property - full stop, whatever illegal fruit evidence they found (clothes on scarecrow) is suppressed. it's debatable how far down the chain the taint goes, is debatable and that's why it makes B only "kind of" right. RF shooting at the cops could be a superseding event.

however, when the cops failed to mirandize RF, that definitely suppresses the admission, full stop. therefor it's *more* right. it's the action that's most closely related (temporally and causally) to the evidence that's being suppressed, and it's the most black/white answer.

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:43 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:23 am
this isn't a "3 wrongs, 1 right" question but a "2 right, 1 more right, super frustrating when you're studying" question.
Don't you love when that happens...

User avatar
RespondeatInferior
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:16 am

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by RespondeatInferior » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:42 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:23 am
onlyoncemore wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:32 am
KernKraft wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:09 pm
RespondeatInferior wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:23 pm
onlyoncemore wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm
chose B>A because [...] How is this not a warrantless entry > fruit of illegality > thereby inadmissible?
Ah shit I didn't even see my typo - sorry about that guys. The answer is A.

@RespondeatInferior I see. The "screen from public view" requirement must've slipped from me in the last few weeks. I thought if the person had taken steps to keep the public out, that was enough. Good to know.

So if I had know that, B would've been out, leaving A. Even though I'd still not be sure 100% about it, it's the only one left after process of elimination so that'd be it. Got it - thanks!
uh... no. assuming the question meant "suppress his *admission* about killing his neighbor"

this isn't a "3 wrongs, 1 right" question but a "2 right, 1 more right, super frustrating when you're studying" question.

cops were definitely not allowed to be INSIDE THE BARBED WIRE. that's not curtilage, that's someone's private property - full stop, whatever illegal fruit evidence they found (clothes on scarecrow) is suppressed. it's debatable how far down the chain the taint goes, is debatable and that's why it makes B only "kind of" right. RF shooting at the cops could be a superseding event.

however, when the cops failed to mirandize RF, that definitely suppresses the admission, full stop. therefor it's *more* right. it's the action that's most closely related (temporally and causally) to the evidence that's being suppressed, and it's the most black/white answer.
"b) Open fields

Private property that lies outside the curtilage of a home, such as a farmer’s field, is not protected by the home’s umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection. Under the “open fields” doctrine, governmental intrusion on such property is not a search. The owner does not have a reasonable (i.e., objective) expectation of privacy, even though the owner may have a subjective expectation of privacy based on the fact that the land is fenced, protected from public view, and “no trespassing” signs are posted. United States v. Oliver, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)."

You're right about the curtilage part but not about the full stop part

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:19 pm

RespondeatInferior wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:42 pm
"b) Open fields

Private property that lies outside the curtilage of a home, such as a farmer’s field, is not protected by the home’s umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection. Under the “open fields” doctrine, governmental intrusion on such property is not a search. The owner does not have a reasonable (i.e., objective) expectation of privacy, even though the owner may have a subjective expectation of privacy based on the fact that the land is fenced, protected from public view, and “no trespassing” signs are posted. United States v. Oliver, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)."
Thank you immensely. Always screwed up on those questions and finally understood the reason. I wish you were part of Adaptibar's team of people writing the answer explanations.

User avatar
RespondeatInferior
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:16 am

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by RespondeatInferior » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:24 pm

KernKraft wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:19 pm
RespondeatInferior wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:42 pm
"b) Open fields

Private property that lies outside the curtilage of a home, such as a farmer’s field, is not protected by the home’s umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection. Under the “open fields” doctrine, governmental intrusion on such property is not a search. The owner does not have a reasonable (i.e., objective) expectation of privacy, even though the owner may have a subjective expectation of privacy based on the fact that the land is fenced, protected from public view, and “no trespassing” signs are posted. United States v. Oliver, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)."
Thank you immensely. Always screwed up on those questions and finally understood the reason. I wish you were part of Adaptibar's team of people writing the answer explanations.
I appreciate that, though this was literally just copied from the Themis outline and pasted.

onlyunholy
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by onlyunholy » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:31 pm

Going through some Adaptibar questions, and finding the explanations conflict. The parol evidence rule bars prior or contemp oral that contradict the full, completely integrated contract. Adaptibar explanations have said one of two things: 1) "Extrinsic evidence cannot supplement or contradict the express terms of a completely integrated agreement, but the evidence can explain the terms of an agreement.” AND 2) Extrinsic evidence cannot contradict but CAN supplement or explain the fully integrated K." Does anyone know which is correct?

onlyunholy
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by onlyunholy » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:29 pm

Sorry, one more: statements made within business records. Are statements/notations made within those documents automatically admissible, or do those statements have to be brought in under another exception/it could be shown whoever wrote the statement had a business or public duty to report the info/statement accurately?

User avatar
RespondeatInferior
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:16 am

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by RespondeatInferior » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:47 pm

A high school teacher played on a hockey team in a local recreational league. During a league game, the teacher was involved in a fight with another hockey player. That player sued the teacher in a battery action to recover for injuries inflicted during the fight. The teacher contended that he had acted in self-defense. The teacher called his principal to testify that the teacher had a reputation within the school community for peacefulness. The plaintiff, who had not introduced evidence of the teacher’s character for violence, objected to this testimony.

Should the court admit this testimony?

Answers:

A: Yes, because the defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait.
B: because character evidence may be introduced through reputation testimony.
C: because the plaintiff had not introduced evidence of the teacher’s character for violence.
D: No, because such evidence is not admissible in a civil action.
Spoiler:
You Selected: A: Yes, because the defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait.
B: Yes, because character evidence may be introduced through reputation testimony.
C: No, because the plaintiff had not introduced evidence of the teacher’s character for violence.
Correct Answer: D: No, because such evidence is not admissible in a civil action.

Rationale:

Answer choice D is correct. Evidence of a defendant’s character is inadmissible in a civil case to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with that character trait unless the defendant’s character is an essential element of a claim or defense. Since the defendant’s character for peacefulness is not an element of either battery or self-defense, the principal’s testimony is not admissible. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although a defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait in a criminal case, such evidence is not admissible in a civil case. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although reputation testimony is an acceptable form of presenting character evidence when such evidence is permitted, character evidence is generally not admissible in a civil action. Answer choice C is incorrect because it is not relevant that the plaintiff has not introduced such evidence. Such evidence is not permitted in a civil case, whether introduced by the plaintiff or the defendant.
I mean, I guess I get that character for peacefulness is not an essential trait of a self-defense claim for battery, but it just feels....wrong. Is the only reason this is inadmissible just because it is not essential to show the teacher is a peaceful person? What if it was just the teacher's word against the student? It seems like it would be a pretty big deal for your defense to be able to have people back up the fact that you don't start fights. It feels wrong and I hate it. :( Though only 19% of people got this one right. So at least I'm not alone.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest