I85PREP
⌘ K
IN Bar study materials
IN Bar study resources

IN Bar practice questions

One question at a time. Build your IN Bar understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A homeowner hired a contractor to remodel her kitchen for $40,000. After the contractor had completed half the work and been paid $20,000, the homeowner wrongfully revoked and refused to allow the contractor to finish. The contractor had spent $18,000 on labor and materials for the completed half and would have earned a $6,000 profit on the entire job. In an action for breach of contract, what is the contractor's best measure of damages?

  1. $24,000, representing expectation damages measured by the contract price less the cost of completion avoided Correct answer.
  2. $18,000, representing reliance costs incurred on the completed portion
  3. $3,000, representing the profit attributable to the unperformed half of the contract
  4. $20,000, representing the full contract price less payments already received

Explanation

When the owner prevents performance, the builder may recover expectation damages: the contract price minus the cost of completion avoided (and any payments received). Here that equals $40,000 minus the $16,000 of remaining costs avoided, or $24,000, which includes the profit the contractor would have made. Reliance recovery is only an alternative ceiling, not the preferred measure when expectation can be proved.

Question 2Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A suspect was arrested and given Miranda warnings. He stated, "I want a lawyer." Police immediately stopped questioning him. Two days later, a different officer approached him in jail, re-advised him, and began questioning about the same offense without counsel present. The suspect made incriminating statements. How should the court rule on admissibility?

  1. Admissible, because the suspect was given fresh Miranda warnings before the second interrogation
  2. Inadmissible, because any statement taken in jail without counsel is automatically coerced
  3. Inadmissible, because the suspect's invocation of counsel bars further interrogation until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates contact Correct answer.
  4. Admissible, because two days had passed and the invocation had become stale

Explanation

Under Edwards v. Arizona, once a suspect unambiguously requests counsel, police may not reinitiate interrogation until counsel is made available or the suspect himself initiates further communication. A fresh set of warnings from a different officer does not cure the violation. The passage of time alone does not dissolve the Edwards presumption.

Question 3Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A landowner granted a neighbor a written easement "for access to the lake" across the landowner's property. The writing was signed by the landowner, stated a price, and was recorded, but it did not describe the width, location, or duration of the easement. The neighbor now uses a broad path for boating access. Which statement best describes the easement?

  1. It is a license revocable at will because the parties never agreed on its dimensions
  2. It is valid only if the neighbor uses the narrowest possible route across the property
  3. It is invalid because the absence of a fixed location makes the description inadequate under the Statute of Frauds
  4. It is valid, and the court may fix a reasonable location and scope consistent with the parties' intent Correct answer.

Explanation

An express easement requires a writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds, but the writing need only identify the parties, the land, and the nature of the interest; precise dimensions are not essential. Where location is unspecified, a court will set a reasonable location and scope consistent with the grant's purpose.

Question 4Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant intentionally shot at a target in a crowded field, intending to kill a rival standing nearby. The bullet missed the rival and struck a bystander, killing him. The defendant is charged with murder. Which mental state supports the conviction?

  1. The defendant is guilty only of manslaughter because he did not intend to kill the bystander
  2. The defendant acted with malice because intent to kill one person transfers to the actual victim Correct answer.
  3. The defendant is guilty only of attempted murder of the rival
  4. The defendant is not guilty of murder because the bystander was not the intended target

Explanation

Under transferred intent, the intent to kill the intended victim transfers to the actual victim, supplying malice aforethought for murder. The defendant's intent to kill the rival satisfies the mens rea requirement even though the bullet struck another person.

Question 5Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A plaintiff sued a defendant for negligence arising from a car accident. At trial, the plaintiff offers a certified copy of a hospital record noting that the plaintiff's treating physician said, "Patient reports the other driver ran the red light." The statement is offered to prove the other driver ran the red light. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude it because the statement is hearsay within hearsay and the patient's statement is not covered by an exception Correct answer.
  2. Exclude it because certified copies are never admissible without the custodian's testimony
  3. Admit it as a statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment
  4. Admit it as a business record because hospital records are routinely kept

Explanation

The record contains two layers of hearsay: the physician's notation (a business record) and the patient's statement within it. The patient's statement about who ran the red light is not pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, so no exception applies and the inner layer fails.

Question 6Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A state enacted a law requiring all incoming first-year students at state universities to live in dormitories. A married 30-year-old student who wishes to live with her spouse in off-campus housing challenges the rule as violating her constitutional rights. Which standard of review applies?

  1. Rational basis review, because the classification does not burden a fundamental right or suspect class Correct answer.
  2. Strict scrutiny, because the right to live with one's family is fundamental
  3. No review, because states have plenary power over their universities
  4. Intermediate scrutiny, because the classification burdens a sensitive group

Explanation

Classifications that do not target a suspect class or burden a fundamental right are reviewed under the rational basis test. A housing rule for first-year students does not implicate a fundamental right such as marriage or voting, so it need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Question 7Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A tenant signed a one-year lease. Six months into the term, the landlord sold the building to a buyer who had no notice of the tenant's lease and who demanded that the tenant vacate. The tenant refused. Which is the tenant's strongest argument for remaining?

  1. The sale automatically terminated the lease, but the tenant may stay rent-free until eviction
  2. The lease survived the sale because the tenant is in possession, giving the buyer constructive notice of the tenancy Correct answer.
  3. The tenant may remain only if the lease was recorded before the sale
  4. The tenant's lease is void against the buyer because leases never bind successors

Explanation

A tenant in possession puts a purchaser on constructive notice of the tenancy, so the buyer takes subject to the lease even without actual notice. Possession itself is the operative fact giving notice to subsequent purchasers.

Question 8Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A company's board of directors approved a merger that benefited the CEO at the shareholders' expense. A shareholder sues derivatively. The board moved to dismiss, arguing that a majority of directors were disinterested and approved the deal in good faith after reasonable investigation. Which standard governs the court's review?

  1. The business judgment rule, because a majority of disinterested directors approved the deal in good faith after reasonable inquiry Correct answer.
  2. The strict scrutiny standard applied to all corporate transactions
  3. The ultra vires standard, because the merger exceeded the board's authority
  4. The entire fairness standard, because the CEO benefited from the transaction

Explanation

When a majority of disinterested directors approves a transaction in good faith after reasonable investigation, the business judgment rule presumes the decision was proper. The plaintiff then bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. Entire fairness applies only where a majority of the board is interested or not independent.

Question 9Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A testator executed a will leaving her estate "to my children equally." She later had a falling out with one child and crossed out that child's name, writing "not him" beside it, and signed her initials next to the change. The will was otherwise unchanged. Under the standard rules governing will alterations, what is the effect?

  1. The deletion is effective because the testator signed her initials beside it
  2. The entire will is revoked because the testator showed intent to change it
  3. The deletion is ineffective, and the original will stands as written Correct answer.
  4. The deletion creates a partial intestacy that voids the entire will

Explanation

Under the traditional rule, alterations to a will must be executed with the same formalities as the will itself; initials and informal markings are insufficient. The original provision therefore remains in force.

Question 10Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A pedestrian was injured when a delivery truck ran a stop sign. The pedestrian sues the driver and the delivery company. At trial, the pedestrian offers evidence that the driver had a prior conviction for reckless driving five years earlier. The driver objects. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude the conviction because evidence of prior bad acts is never admissible in civil cases
  2. Admit the conviction to show the driver's propensity for careless driving
  3. Exclude the conviction unless it is offered to impeach the driver's character for truthfulness while testifying Correct answer.
  4. Admit the conviction because prior convictions are always admissible against a party

Explanation

Evidence of a prior conviction is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity, but it may be used to impeach a testifying witness's character for truthfulness if the crime involved dishonesty or, for felonies, subject to balancing. Reckless driving does not involve dishonesty and is offered here as propensity evidence, so it must be excluded.

Question 11Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

An offeree received an offer to sell a parcel of land for $200,000, with a stated deadline of Friday at noon. On Thursday, the offeree mailed an acceptance that arrived Saturday morning. The offer stated that acceptance is effective only upon receipt. Was a contract formed?

  1. No, because the offer required receipt and the acceptance arrived after the deadline Correct answer.
  2. Yes, because the deadline was not a material term of the offer
  3. Yes, because the mailbox rule makes acceptance effective on dispatch
  4. No, because offers for land sales cannot be accepted by mail

Explanation

The offeror is master of the offer and may specify that acceptance is effective only upon receipt, displacing the default mailbox rule. Because the acceptance arrived after the stated deadline, it operated as a counteroffer rather than an acceptance.

Question 12Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant was charged with burglary. The prosecution seeks to introduce the defendant's confession obtained after he was told, "You will feel better if you tell us what happened." The defendant was in custody and had not been advised of his rights. Which is the strongest basis for excluding the confession?

  1. The statement was obtained in violation of Miranda because the defendant was in custody and not advised of his rights Correct answer.
  2. The confession is admissible because the officer's comment was not a threat
  3. The confession is inadmissible because confessions are hearsay
  4. The confession is inadmissible because police may never encourage a suspect to talk

Explanation

Miranda requires warnings before custodial interrogation, and the officer's encouragement was designed to elicit an incriminating response. Because the defendant was in custody and unadvised, the confession is subject to suppression.

Question 13Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A plaintiff sued a defendant for battery after an altercation. The defendant claims self-defense. The plaintiff offers evidence that the defendant had a reputation in the community for being violent. The defendant objects. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the evidence because reputation evidence is always admissible in civil cases
  2. Exclude the evidence because the defendant has not offered evidence of the plaintiff's character for violence Correct answer.
  3. Exclude the evidence because reputation evidence is never admissible
  4. Admit the evidence as character evidence because self-defense is at issue

Explanation

A defendant may offer evidence of the alleged victim's character for violence to support a self-defense claim, but the plaintiff may not introduce the defendant's violent character to prove he acted in conformity unless the defendant first opens the door by offering pertinent character evidence. Here the defendant has not done so.

Question 14Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A state law required all applicants for a plumbing license to pass a written examination. A qualified applicant who had practiced plumbing for twenty years failed the exam three times and sued, arguing that the exam requirement violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Which is the most likely outcome?

  1. The law is valid only if the state shows a compelling interest in licensing plumbers
  2. The law is invalid because occupational licensing is unconstitutional
  3. The law is valid if the examination is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in protecting public health Correct answer.
  4. The law is invalid under strict scrutiny because it burdens the right to pursue a calling

Explanation

Occupational licensing is reviewed under the rational basis test because it does not burden a fundamental right or target a suspect class. The state need only show the requirement is rationally related to a legitimate interest such as public safety.

Question 15Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A general partnership had three partners. One partner, without the consent of the others, signed a contract to purchase expensive manufacturing equipment on behalf of the partnership. The other partners object and refuse to pay. The seller sues the partnership. Who is liable?

  1. No one, because the contract was outside the ordinary course of business
  2. Only the signing partner, because he acted without consent
  3. The partnership, because a partner's act apparently carrying on partnership business binds the partnership unless the partner lacked authority and the third party knew Correct answer.
  4. Only the partnership entity, with no personal liability for any partner

Explanation

Under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, an act of a partner apparently carrying on the ordinary course of partnership business binds the partnership unless the partner lacked authority and the third party had notice. The seller, unaware of any limitation, may enforce the contract against the partnership.

Question 16Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A motorist drove through a red light and struck a cyclist. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet, and the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. The motorist proves the cyclist's failure to wear a helmet contributed to the injuries. What is the effect?

  1. The cyclist recovers nothing only if her fault exceeded the motorist's
  2. The cyclist recovers fully because the motorist's violation is negligence per se
  3. The cyclist's recovery is reduced proportionally to her fault
  4. The cyclist recovers nothing, because contributory negligence is a complete bar in such jurisdictions Correct answer.

Explanation

In a jurisdiction retaining traditional contributory negligence, any negligence by the plaintiff that contributes to the injury bars recovery entirely. Comparative fault and proportional reduction apply only in comparative negligence jurisdictions.

Question 17Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A landowner kept a large, naturally accumulated pond on her property. The pond overflowed after heavy rains and damaged a neighbor's property. The neighbor sues. Under the traditional rule governing surface water, which is the landowner's best defense?

  1. The landowner is strictly liable because ponds are abnormally dangerous
  2. The landowner is liable because water is a common enemy
  3. The landowner is not liable because she did not negligently alter the natural condition Correct answer.
  4. The landowner is liable because landowners are insurers of their neighbors' safety

Explanation

Under the traditional common-enemy rule, a landowner may divert surface water without liability, and natural accumulations that overflow without negligence generally do not create liability. The absence of negligent alteration of the natural condition supports the defense.

Question 18Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A buyer and seller entered into a contract for the sale of goods. The contract contained a clause stating that the seller would not be liable for any consequential damages. The buyer later sued for lost profits after the seller delivered defective goods. Which is the most likely result?

  1. The clause is automatically void under the UCC
  2. The clause is unenforceable because consequential damages cannot be waived
  3. The clause is enforceable only if the buyer was represented by counsel
  4. The clause is enforceable unless it is unconscionable Correct answer.

Explanation

Under UCC Article 2, parties may limit or exclude consequential damages unless the limitation is unconscionable. A commercial buyer's agreed limitation is generally enforceable, and unconscionability is the exception.

Question 19Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant was tried for robbery. During jury deliberations, a juror told the others that she knew the defendant from the neighborhood and that "he's the type who would do this." The jury convicted. The defendant moves for a new trial based on juror misconduct. How should the court rule?

  1. Deny the motion because juror deliberations are absolutely protected from inquiry
  2. Grant the motion because any juror comment about the defendant requires a new trial
  3. Grant the motion because the juror introduced extraneous prejudicial information about the defendant's character Correct answer.
  4. Deny the motion because the juror's statement was merely an opinion

Explanation

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) bars inquiry into the validity of a verdict based on a juror's mental processes or deliberations, but it permits testimony about extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury's attention. The juror's statement about the defendant's character is such extraneous information, warranting a new trial.

Question 20Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A principal gave an agent authority to purchase office supplies up to $5,000. The agent, without informing the principal, purchased $8,000 worth of supplies from a seller who knew nothing of the limit. The principal refuses to pay the excess. Which is the principal's best argument?

  1. The principal is not bound because the seller failed to inquire about the agent's authority
  2. The agent lacked actual authority, so the principal is not bound
  3. The principal is bound because the agent had apparent authority, and the seller reasonably relied Correct answer.
  4. The principal is bound because agents always bind principals for purchases

Explanation

Even where an agent exceeds actual authority, a principal may be bound by apparent authority if the principal's manifestations created the appearance of authority and the third party reasonably relied. The seller, unaware of the cap, reasonably believed the agent had authority to buy supplies.

Question 21Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A state statute prohibited the sale of "any drug paraphernalia." A defendant was charged with selling a glass pipe commonly used for smoking marijuana but also usable for tobacco. The defendant argues the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Which is the strongest basis for the challenge?

  1. The statute is valid because all drug laws are constitutional
  2. The statute fails to provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited because it does not define paraphernalia with sufficient clarity Correct answer.
  3. The statute is invalid because it burdens a fundamental right to smoke
  4. The statute is invalid because it regulates interstate commerce

Explanation

A criminal statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. A statute prohibiting "any drug paraphernalia" without defining the term or distinguishing legitimate uses may be void for vagueness.

Question 22Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of contract. The plaintiff offers a letter written by the plaintiff to a friend stating, "The defendant agreed to pay me $10,000 by June 1." The defendant objects on hearsay grounds. The letter is offered to prove the defendant agreed to the terms. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the letter as a party admission because the plaintiff is a party
  2. Exclude the letter because it is the plaintiff's own out-of-court statement offered for its truth Correct answer.
  3. Admit the letter as a recorded recollection
  4. Exclude the letter because letters are never admissible

Explanation

The plaintiff's own out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay and is not admissible as a party admission, because the party-admission exception applies to statements of an opposing party. No other exception applies on these facts.

Question 23Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant was charged with murder. At trial, the prosecution offered evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of perjury. The defendant testified in his own defense. The prosecution offers the perjury conviction to impeach him. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit it, because perjury is a crime involving dishonesty and bears on truthfulness Correct answer.
  2. Admit it, because all felony convictions are automatically admissible
  3. Exclude it, because the conviction is too remote in time
  4. Exclude it, because prior convictions cannot be used to impeach a testifying defendant

Explanation

Under Rule 609, a conviction for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, such as perjury, is admissible to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness. Unlike other felonies, crimes of dishonesty are not subject to the Rule 403 balancing that can exclude them.

Question 24Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A corporation's articles of incorporation authorized 1,000 shares. The board issued 1,200 shares to a friendly investor without shareholder approval, exceeding the authorized amount. A shareholder challenges the issuance. What is the likely result?

  1. The issuance is void only if the investor knew of the limit
  2. The issuance is valid because the board has broad authority to issue shares
  3. The issuance is invalid as to the excess shares because it exceeds the authorized amount Correct answer.
  4. The issuance is valid because shareholders cannot challenge board actions

Explanation

A corporation may issue only the number of shares authorized in its articles of incorporation. Issuances beyond that number are invalid unless the articles are amended to increase the authorized shares.

Question 25Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A landowner died intestate survived by a spouse and two children from a prior marriage. Under the Uniform Probate Code's intestate succession rules, how is the estate distributed?

  1. The entire estate passes to the surviving spouse
  2. The children receive the entire estate because they are the decedent's descendants
  3. The surviving spouse receives the first $150,000 plus one-half of the remainder, and the children share the rest Correct answer.
  4. The estate is divided equally among the spouse and the two children

Explanation

Under the UPC, when the decedent leaves a spouse and descendants who are not descendants of the surviving spouse, the spouse receives the first $150,000 plus one-half of the balance, and the descendants take the remainder. This protects children of a prior relationship.

Question 26Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A landowner granted a neighbor an easement 'for so long as the neighbor maintains a fence along the boundary.' The neighbor later removed the fence and stopped using the path. A court would most likely classify the neighbor's interest as which of the following?

  1. An easement appurtenant that runs with the land indefinitely
  2. An estate in land subject to the rule against perpetuities
  3. An easement subject to termination because it is defeasible upon a condition Correct answer.
  4. An easement in gross held in fee simple absolute

Explanation

An easement created to last only while a stated condition is satisfied is a defeasible easement; it ends automatically when the condition fails. Removing the fence and ceasing use triggers termination. The interest is not a fee estate and does not become perpetual merely because it once benefited the neighbor.

Question 27Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A homeowner hired a contractor to remodel a kitchen for $40,000. After the contractor finished, the homeowner refused to pay, claiming she was unhappy with the color of the grout. The contract said nothing about grout color. In the contractor's suit for the contract price, the homeowner's best defense is which of the following?

  1. That the homeowner may rescind because the contract lacked a price term
  2. That the homeowner may withhold the entire price because any defect is a material breach
  3. That the homeowner is excused because she subjectively disliked the work
  4. That the contractor substantially performed but is entitled only to the contract price minus damages Correct answer.

Explanation

A party who substantially performs is entitled to the contract price less any damages caused by minor defects. A trivial grout-color issue does not defeat the essential purpose of the contract, so the homeowner cannot withhold everything. Subjective dissatisfaction is irrelevant when the work meets objective standards.

Question 28Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant is charged with arson after allegedly burning a vacant warehouse. At trial, the prosecution offers evidence that ten years earlier the defendant set fire to an abandoned barn. The defendant objects. The evidence is most likely admissible for which purpose?

  1. To show the defendant's motive to collect insurance on the warehouse
  2. To prove identity by showing a distinctive modus operandi shared by both fires Correct answer.
  3. To prove the defendant's propensity for destroying property
  4. To impeach the defendant's character for truthfulness

Explanation

Prior bad acts are inadmissible to show propensity but may be admitted for a permissible purpose such as identity when the crimes share a signature pattern. A distinctive method linking both fires can support identity. Mere similarity of result, without a unique pattern, would not suffice.

Question 29Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A plaintiff sued a defendant for negligence arising from a car accident. At trial, the plaintiff calls a witness who testifies that a bystander at the scene said, 'That blue car ran the red light.' The defendant objects on hearsay grounds. The statement is most likely admissible because it is which of the following?

  1. A statement against interest
  2. An excited utterance Correct answer.
  3. A business record
  4. A recorded recollection

Explanation

A statement made while the declarant is under the stress of a startling event, before there is time to reflect, is admissible as an excited utterance. A bystander's immediate reaction to a collision fits that exception. The other listed exceptions require foundational facts absent here.

Question 30Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A police officer stopped a driver for a broken taillight. Without asking for consent, the officer ordered the driver out of the car and searched the passenger compartment, finding a handgun under the seat. The driver moves to suppress. The search is most likely constitutional because of which doctrine?

  1. The search was limited to the passenger compartment and the officer had ordered the driver out lawfully Correct answer.
  2. The search was a valid inventory search incident to towing the vehicle
  3. The officer had probable cause to believe the car contained contraband
  4. The driver had a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile

Explanation

After a lawful traffic stop, an officer may order the driver and passengers out of the vehicle and may search the passenger compartment for weapons, even without probable cause, because the stop is lawful and the area is within the driver's immediate control. The search must remain limited to that compartment.

Question 31Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A state enacted a statute requiring any person who sells furniture to obtain a license and to post a $10,000 bond, while exempting sellers of used furniture. A new seller of new furniture challenges the statute. Under equal protection analysis, the statute is most likely constitutional if which standard is met?

  1. The classification is narrowly tailored to a significant governmental objective
  2. The classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest Correct answer.
  3. The classification is necessary to a compelling state interest
  4. The classification is substantially related to an important governmental interest

Explanation

Economic and commercial classifications that do not burden a suspect class or fundamental right are reviewed under rational basis. The statute survives if the distinction between new and used furniture sellers is rationally related to a legitimate interest such as consumer protection.

Question 32Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A testator's will devised 'my residuary estate to my sister, and if she does not survive me, to my niece.' The sister predeceased the testator, and the niece survived. The testator's spouse, who was omitted from the will, claims an intestate share. Which interest is the niece entitled to receive?

  1. Nothing, because the omitted spouse takes the entire residue
  2. The entire residue, because the substitutional gift to the niece takes effect Correct answer.
  3. Nothing, because the gift to the sister lapsed and the residue passes by intestacy
  4. Half of the residue, with the remainder passing to the spouse by intestacy

Explanation

A substitutional gift directs what happens if the primary beneficiary does not survive, and it takes effect when the named condition occurs. Because the sister predeceased the testator, the niece takes the residue under the will. The omitted-spouse claim, if any, is addressed separately and does not displace the valid devise here.

Question 33Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A corporation's board declared a dividend payable to shareholders of record on June 1. On May 15, a shareholder sold her shares to a buyer but retained the certificate until June 2, when she delivered it. Who is entitled to the dividend?

  1. The buyer, because the sale transferred beneficial ownership before the record date
  2. The seller, because she was the holder of record on the record date Correct answer.
  3. The buyer and seller equally, because the dividend accrued during the sale
  4. The corporation, because the certificate was not delivered until after the record date

Explanation

Dividend entitlement is determined by record ownership on the declared record date. Although the seller had contracted to sell, she remained the shareholder of record on June 1 because the certificate was not delivered until later. The buyer's remedy, if any, lies in the sale agreement.

Question 34Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant is charged with larceny for taking a bicycle from a rack. The prosecution proves the defendant intended to borrow the bicycle for a two-hour ride and then return it. Which element of larceny is missing?

  1. The trespassory taking
  2. The carrying away of the property
  3. The taking from the owner's person
  4. The intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession Correct answer.

Explanation

Larceny requires a trespassory taking and carrying away of another's personal property with the intent to permanently deprive. A temporary borrowing without intent to keep the property negates that specific intent. The taking and carrying away are otherwise satisfied.

Question 35Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

An owner contracted to sell her house to a buyer for $300,000, closing in sixty days. Before closing, the owner conveyed the house to a third party who paid value and had no notice of the contract. The buyer sues the third party. Which result is most likely?

  1. The third party prevails as a bona fide purchaser who recorded first Correct answer.
  2. The buyer prevails because the contract predates the third party's deed
  3. The third party prevails only if he had actual notice of the contract
  4. The buyer prevails because the contract gave him equitable title at signing

Explanation

Under the notice or race-notice recording acts, a subsequent purchaser who takes without notice of a prior unrecorded interest and records first prevails over the earlier purchaser. A bona fide purchaser for value cuts off the prior equitable interest. The buyer's remedy then lies against the seller for breach.

Question 36Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A homeowner invited a guest to a dinner party. While walking to the dining room, the guest slipped on a spilled drink the homeowner had left on the floor an hour earlier. The guest sues for negligence. The homeowner's duty to the guest is best described as which of the following?

  1. A duty to refrain from willful and wanton misconduct only
  2. A duty to exercise reasonable care for the guest's safety Correct answer.
  3. No duty, because the guest was a social invitee who assumed the risk
  4. A duty to warn only of known hidden dangers

Explanation

A social guest is a licensee, and a possessor owes a licensee a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn of or make safe known conditions that create an unreasonable risk and that the guest is unlikely to discover. Leaving a spill on the floor for an hour supports breach of that duty.

Question 37Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A company's president signed a contract with a supplier on the company's behalf, but the board had adopted an internal resolution requiring two officers' signatures for contracts over $50,000. The supplier, unaware of the resolution, signed a $75,000 contract with only the president's signature. In the supplier's suit against the company, which theory best supports enforcement?

  1. Apparent authority, because the president held a position that reasonably appeared to carry contracting power Correct answer.
  2. Implied actual authority, because the president's title carries unlimited authority
  3. Express actual authority, because the president is the company's chief executive
  4. Ratification, because the board later accepted the goods without objection

Explanation

Apparent authority arises when a principal's manifestations lead a third party to reasonably believe the agent has authority. A company president customarily appears to have power to bind the corporation, and the supplier had no notice of the internal restriction. Undisclosed limitations do not defeat the reasonable belief.

Question 38Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A plaintiff sued a defendant for battery. At trial, the plaintiff offers evidence that the defendant had a prior conviction for assault. The defendant's character for violence is offered to prove he acted in conformity with it. The evidence is most likely which of the following?

  1. Admissible, because prior convictions are always admissible for impeachment
  2. Inadmissible, because character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in a civil case Correct answer.
  3. Admissible, because the defendant opened the door by pleading self-defense
  4. Inadmissible, because the conviction is too remote in time

Explanation

In civil cases, evidence of a person's character is generally not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with it. The prior assault conviction therefore cannot be used to show the defendant acted violently on this occasion. Propensity evidence is barred absent an applicable exception.

Question 39Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A city ordinance prohibited the operation of a food truck within 100 feet of a school. A vendor who regularly parked near a school challenged the ordinance as a violation of due process. Which standard governs the vendor's substantive due process claim?

  1. Strict scrutiny, because the ordinance limits the right to pursue a livelihood
  2. Intermediate scrutiny, because the ordinance affects a quasi-suspect class
  3. Rational basis, because economic regulation affecting a business is reviewed deferentially Correct answer.
  4. Procedural due process, because the vendor was not given a hearing before enforcement

Explanation

Substantive due process challenges to economic regulations are reviewed under rational basis, and the law is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest such as child safety. The right to pursue a calling is not treated as fundamental in this context. Courts defer to the legislature's judgment.

Question 40Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A seller agreed in writing to sell a painting to a buyer for $50,000. Before delivery, the seller repudiated. The buyer had already spent $2,000 on an appraisal in reliance on the contract. The buyer sues for breach. What is the buyer's most likely measure of damages?

  1. The difference between the market price and the contract price, plus incidental damages Correct answer.
  2. Nothing, because the painting was never delivered
  3. $2,000 in reliance damages only
  4. The contract price of $50,000

Explanation

For breach of a contract for the sale of goods, the buyer may recover the difference between the market price at the time of breach and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages. Expectation damages place the buyer in the position performance would have produced. Reliance costs alone understate the remedy.

Question 41Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant was charged with burglary of a residence. The prosecution seeks to introduce the defendant's statement made to police after he was arrested, before any warning was given, that 'I was in the house, but I didn't take anything.' The statement was voluntary. The statement is most likely which of the following?

  1. Admissible, because burglary is not a crime involving interrogation
  2. Inadmissible, because it was made after arrest without counsel
  3. Admissible, because it was voluntary and not the product of interrogation Correct answer.
  4. Inadmissible, because it was made without Miranda warnings

Explanation

Miranda warnings are required only for custodial interrogation. A voluntary statement made spontaneously, without police questioning, is not the product of interrogation and is admissible. The absence of warnings alone does not bar a volunteered statement.

Question 42Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A landowner conveyed a parcel 'to my brother for life, then to my brother's children who reach age 21.' At the time of the conveyance, the brother had one child, age 5. Which interest does the brother hold?

  1. A fee simple subject to executory limitation
  2. A life estate, with the remainder in the brother's children contingent on reaching 21 Correct answer.
  3. A term of years estate measured by the brother's life
  4. A fee simple absolute, because the children's interest is void

Explanation

The grant creates a life estate in the brother, followed by a remainder in his children that is contingent because the children must survive to age 21. Because the remainder is held by unascertained persons subject to a condition precedent, it is contingent rather than vested. The life estate is not a fee.

Question 43Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A plaintiff sued a defendant for defamation after the defendant posted on a public forum that the plaintiff 'cheated clients.' The plaintiff is a private figure, and the statement concerns a matter of public concern. The defendant claims the statement was true. Which standard applies to the plaintiff's burden on falsity?

  1. The plaintiff must prove falsity by a preponderance of the evidence Correct answer.
  2. The plaintiff must prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence
  3. The defendant must prove truth as an affirmative defense by a preponderance
  4. Falsity is presumed, and the defendant must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt

Explanation

When a private figure sues on a matter of public concern, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving falsity, but only by a preponderance of the evidence; the higher clear-and-convincing standard applies to actual malice. Truth is not an affirmative defense the defendant must prove in that setting. The allocation reflects the constitutional limits on defamation liability.

Question 44Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A partnership agreement provided that profits and losses would be shared equally among three partners. One partner, without authorization, incurred a $30,000 debt on behalf of the partnership in the ordinary course of business. The creditor seeks payment from the partnership. Which result is most likely?

  1. The partnership is not liable, because the partner lacked actual authority
  2. The partnership is liable only if all partners ratified the transaction
  3. The partnership is liable, because a partner's act in the ordinary course of business binds the partnership Correct answer.
  4. Only the acting partner is liable, because the debt was unauthorized

Explanation

Under partnership law, an act of a partner apparently carrying on the ordinary course of partnership business binds the partnership unless the partner lacked authority and the third party knew of the lack. The creditor had no notice of any restriction. Ratification is therefore unnecessary.

Question 45Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant is charged with murder. The prosecution offers evidence that the defendant fled the jurisdiction after the killing. The defendant argues the evidence is irrelevant. The flight evidence is most likely which of the following?

  1. Admissible only if the defendant testifies
  2. Admissible as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt Correct answer.
  3. Inadmissible, because it is character evidence
  4. Inadmissible, because flight is equally consistent with innocence

Explanation

Flight after a crime is relevant circumstantial evidence suggesting consciousness of guilt. The jury may consider it along with other evidence, and the defendant may explain it. It is not barred merely because an innocent explanation is possible.

Question 46Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A state law required all applicants for a license to practice barbering to complete 1,000 hours of training, while cosmetologists needed only 300 hours. A barbering applicant challenged the law. Which level of scrutiny applies to the classification?

  1. Intermediate scrutiny, because the classification involves gender-neutral occupational rules
  2. No scrutiny, because licensing is entirely within the police power
  3. Strict scrutiny, because the right to work is fundamental
  4. Rational basis, because the classification is economic and does not burden a suspect class Correct answer.

Explanation

Occupational licensing classifications are economic regulations reviewed under rational basis unless they burden a suspect class or fundamental right. The right to pursue a calling is not fundamental in this context. The state need only show a rational relationship to a legitimate interest such as public safety.

Question 47Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A testator executed a will leaving $100,000 to his friend. Two years later, the testator married, and he never revised the will. Under the Uniform Probate Code's omitted-spouse provision, the surviving spouse is most likely entitled to which of the following?

  1. One-half of the $100,000, because the spouse and friend share equally
  2. An intestate share, unless the will shows an intent to disinherit the spouse Correct answer.
  3. The entire estate, because marriage revokes the prior will
  4. Nothing, because the will was valid when executed

Explanation

Under the UPC omitted-spouse provision, a spouse who married the testator after the will was executed receives an intestate share unless the will shows an intent to disinherit the spouse or the spouse was provided for by transfer. The statute protects a spouse inadvertently omitted by later marriage. The friend's gift is reduced accordingly.

Question 48Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A buyer ordered 500 widgets from a seller for $5,000, with delivery on June 1. On May 1, the seller told the buyer it would not deliver. The buyer did nothing until June 1, when the market price of widgets had risen to $6,000. The buyer sues for breach. What damages may the buyer recover?

  1. $1,000, the difference between market price at the time of breach and the contract price Correct answer.
  2. $0, because the seller's repudiation was not in writing
  3. $5,000, the full contract price
  4. Nothing, because the buyer failed to cover

Explanation

When a seller repudiates, the buyer may await performance or resort to remedies. If the buyer waits, damages are measured by the market price at the time of performance, here June 1. The difference between $6,000 and $5,000 yields $1,000.

Question 49Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A defendant is charged with robbery. At trial, the prosecution offers the testimony of a witness who says the defendant told him, 'I took the wallet from the man on the corner.' The defendant objects that the statement was not against his interest when made because he believed the victim owed him money. The statement is most likely which of the following?

  1. Admissible only if the witness is unavailable
  2. Inadmissible, because it was not made under oath
  3. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception
  4. Admissible as an admission by a party-opponent Correct answer.

Explanation

A statement offered against a party-opponent is not barred by the hearsay rule; the party's own words may be used against him. Admissions need not be against interest when made, and the declarant's availability is irrelevant. The defendant may offer context to explain the statement.

Question 50Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) subjects

A landowner's property contained a naturally occurring spring that periodically overflowed onto a neighbor's land, damaging crops. The landowner had done nothing to alter the flow. Under the traditional rule governing surface water, the landowner is most likely liable if which of the following is shown?

  1. The spring overflowed at all, because strict liability applies to water
  2. The landowner failed to build a retaining wall
  3. The landowner used the property in a way that unreasonably interfered with the neighbor's use Correct answer.
  4. The neighbor's crops were damaged, regardless of the landowner's conduct

Explanation

Under the reasonable-use rule for surface water, a landowner is liable only when the use of land unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use and enjoyment. Natural overflow without unreasonable conduct does not create liability. The traditional common-enemy rule similarly protects natural conditions.