2017

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/fyx/FYLSX_June2017_SelectedAnswers_R.pdf

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/fyx/FYLSX_OCT2017_SelectedAnswers.pdf

June 2017 Question 1 [Torts]

Mary, a football fan, owns an old-looking football seemingly autographed by Bart Starr (the winning quarterback in the first Super Bowl in 1967), that she bought for $100 at a flea market. Mary and her friend Dan both assumed that it was a genuine autographed game ball used in that 1967 Super Bowl. Dan offered Mary $10,000 for the ball. In response, Mary wrote in pen on a napkin, “Dan agrees to buy Mary’s Bart Starr football for $10,000 on or before December 1, 2016.” Dan signed the napkin in pen, and Mary kept the napkin without signing it. As December approached, Dan was unable to come up with $10,000. Dan’s friend Ed, who also assumed the ball was a genuine autographed 1967 Super Bowl game ball, wanted the ball, so Dan typed a document which read, “Dan hereby assigns all of his rights to buy Mary’s football to Ed; Ed hereby assumes all of Dan’s obligations under Dan’s contract with Mary to buy her football.” Dan and Ed both signed three copies, each keeping one copy and sending one copy to Mary. After some internet research, Ed discovered that while the Bart Starr autograph on the football was genuine, the football was not the type used in the 1967 game; it was instead a consumer product manufactured after 2005. The ball is worth about $1,000. Dan and Ed no longer wanted the ball. On December 2, 2016, Mary sued Dan and Ed for breach of contract. 1. Can Mary prevail on her lawsuit? Discuss. 2. If so, what damages, if any, is Mary entitled to recover, and from whom? Discuss. 3. What defenses, if any, may Dan and Ed reasonably assert, and will they be successful? Discuss.

June 2017 Question 2 [Torts]

Donna was walking down an alley with her twelve-year-old daughter Alice. As they passed a parked car with its windows down, Alice said, “Look, Mom, there is a purse on the seat of that car.” Donna stopped and said, “Alice, I want you to go to the corner and shout to me if you see a police officer coming.” After Alice walked to the corner, Donna reached into the car and grabbed the purse. She opened the purse, removed the cash from the wallet, and threw the purse back into the car. During these events, Alice kept looking for police. Because no police officer appeared, she did not shout. Donna and Alice were not aware that the purse had been placed in the car by police officers as part of an undercover crime investigation. Officer Oscar observed everything that Donna and Alice said and did. 1. What crimes, if any, has Donna committed, and does she have any defenses? Discuss. 2. What crimes, if any, has Alice committed, and does she have any defenses? Discuss.

June 2017 Question 3 [Torts]

Tom lived next door to his girlfriend Heather, and often helped her tend her yard. To do so, Tom used the tools that were stored in Heather’s wooden toolshed, which abutted Heather’s house, such as a lawnmower and edger, both of which were filled with gasoline. One day when Tom thought Heather was away at work, he went to Heather’s house to mow the lawn. However, through the backyard window, Tom was surprised to see Heather kissing another man. Tom felt queasy and left. He went to the drug store and bought Anxiety-Fix, an over-the-counter anti-anxiety medication that he had never used before, and headed home. Tom took three Anxiety-Fix pills, even though the instructions on the box stated that a person should take no more than two pills every eight hours. Two hours later, still feeling anxious, Tom took four more Anxiety-Fix pills, and fell asleep. Tom awoke in the middle of the night due to a nightmare he had about Heather. Tom then lit several firecrackers in his yard, and threw them at Heather’s house. He wanted to wake her up to discuss what he had seen. Two of the firecrackers landed in the toolshed, setting it afire. The sound of the firecrackers awakened Heather and, upon seeing flames, she grabbed a can of lighter fluid, opened some windows on the side of the house near the shed, and squirted the flammable fluid on the windowsills. Heather had been having a hard time selling her house and thought that, as long as the shed was going to burn down, the house could just as well burn with it since her insurance would cover the loss. Meanwhile, Tom used a garden hose to extinguish the fire in the toolshed before it spread. The inside of the toolshed suffered smoke damage. All of the items inside of it were destroyed. 1. Can it be reasonably argued that Tom is guilty of arson? Discuss. 2. Does Tom have any valid defenses? Discuss. 3. Can it be reasonably argued that Heather is guilty of any crimes? Discuss.

June 2017 Question 4 [Torts]

While working in the produce section of a supermarket, Albert accidentally dropped a watermelon, which broke open, making the floor wet and slippery. Betty, the produce manager, immediately approached Albert and loudly criticized him for being “clumsy.” Albert, who was humiliated, told Betty, “I quit!” and pushed her in order to get past her and leave the store. As a result, Betty slipped on the spilled watermelon, fell and hit her head on the floor, and suffered a debilitating brain injury. As Albert was leaving the store, he grabbed a shopping cart and pushed it violently at Carl, the store manager, who was standing nearby and who jumped out of the way. The cart missed Carl but struck Duane, an elderly shopper, on his back side. Duane, who had an unstable heart condition, suffered a heart attack as a result. In the parking lot, Albert walked around a car he believed was Betty’s, and used his car key to leave a deep gouge in the finish on all four sides of the car. As it turned out, the car belonged to Edna, not Betty. Under what theories of intentional tort could Betty, Carl, Duane, and Edna bring claims against Albert, and what damages, if any, are likely to be awarded in a lawsuit brought by:

1. Betty against Albert? Discuss

2. Carl against Albert? Discuss

3. Duane against Albert? Discuss

4. Edna against Albert? Discuss

October 2017 Question 1 [Torts]

Spacetrip is a new venture created to send paying clients on a trip of a lifetime to the moon aboard its spaceship, the Escapade. This spaceship is equipped with a vehicle escape system using parachutes to allow passengers to return safely to the ground should a malfunction occur during the spaceship’s ascent. This system is widely used and listed in the Rocket Industry Standards Manual as being “sufficient to provide adequate safeguards.” Recently, a new system has become available that uses rockets to navigate the escape capsule back to the ground much more safely. However, this new system is also much more expensive than the parachute system and has not been tested in real-life situations. Spacetrip decided to stick with its tried-andtrue parachute system. Paula, who wanted an adventure, decided to purchase this trip from Spacetrip. She signed a contract containing this statement: “Although Spacetrip has taken all reasonable measures to provide a safe voyage, I understand that space exploration is dangerous.” On the day of the liftoff, the weather was beautiful and all systems were working as designed. But shortly after takeoff, a totally unpredictable violent storm arose, blowing the Escapade off course. There was no way to correct for the deviation, so Spacetrip activated the escape system, which deployed as designed. Unfortunately, the storm caused the escape capsule to crash to the ground. Paula was critically injured, but survived. Investigations after the accident indicated that the new rocket escape system might have led to a better outcome. 1. What tort cause(s) of action may Paula reasonably bring against Spacetrip? Discuss. 2. What defense(s), if any, does Spacetrip have? Discuss.

October 2017 Question 2 [Torts]

One night, Andy went to a local bar in town. He had a large number of drinks and became intoxicated. When the bartender refused to serve him any more drinks, Andy flew into a rage and went to his car to get his handgun. With the gun in his hand, Andy intended to return to the bar. Instead, he got confused and stumbled into the convenience store next door, pointed the gun at Charles, the cashier, and said: “Give me a drink or I’ll shoot.” When Charles hesitated, Andy pointed the gun at the ceiling and fired. At the sound of the gunshot, several store customers rushed outside. One of the fleeing customers bumped into Walter, who was standing on the sidewalk outside the store. The impact caused Walter to fall into the street. Before he was able to recover, Walter was struck and killed by an oncoming car. When Andy fired the gun, the bullet struck a metal pipe, bounced off the pipe, and hit another store customer, Vickie, in the arm. She was rushed to the hospital to receive emergency medical treatment. Unfortunately, Vickie contracted an infection while at the hospital and later died. Andy claims he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing. He insists he never wanted to hurt anybody. 1. With what crimes, if any, can Andy reasonably be charged? Discuss. 2. What defenses, if any, can Andy reasonably raise? Discuss.

October 2017 Question 3 [Torts]

Owner entered into a valid written contract with FloorCo to purchase beige colored Acme brand vinyl floor tiles for her new restaurant, for $10,000, to be delivered in three weeks. The day after the contract was signed, FloorCo called Owner and orally offered to install the tiles during the week following delivery, for $5,000, which offer was immediately accepted by Owner. Two weeks later, FloorCo called Owner again and told her that it was buying a new, superior floor cleaning machine and that it would like to use this new machine to clean the vinyl floors once a week for one year, in return for $5,000. Eager to have a professional company take care of the cleaning, Owner again immediately accepted the cleaning offer. Owner paid $20,000 for the tiles, the installation, and the year of cleaning. FloorCo delivered all the tiles on the scheduled delivery date. Although the tiles were visually identical to the Acme brand beige tiles, they were actually Bravo brand, a more expensive and higher quality vinyl tile than Acme’s. That evening, FloorCo sent Owner an email that stated: “We assume you are delighted by our substituting the much better Bravo tiles for your order. We have arranged for and paid Irving, who is an independent contractor flooring installer, to install your vinyl tiles this week. The manufacturer of the new Vinyl-Clean machine has just today permanently ceased all production and canceled our machine order due to a design defect, so we will not be cleaning your floors this year and will refund your $5,000 immediately.” 1. What are Owner’s rights and remedies, if any, with regard to getting the wrong brand of tiles from FloorCo? Discuss. 2. What are Owner’s rights and remedies, if any, with regard to FloorCo’s delegation of its duties to a new installer? Discuss. 3. What are Owner’s rights and remedies, if any, with regard to FloorCo’s cancellation of the floor cleaning contract? Discuss.

October 2017 Question 4 [Torts]

On a sunny winter day, Dan went for a hike in the mountains. While walking on a trail far from civilization, a sudden storm arose. Thick snow accompanied by horrific winds created blizzard conditions. Dan was an experienced outdoorsman and knew that, without shelter, he was likely to succumb to hypothermia and die. Fortunately, Dan remembered that his friend Jill owned a cabin in the vicinity. Jill had told him that he could use the cabin should the need arise. In the blizzard conditions, Dan struggled to find Jill’s cabin, but soon saw a red-roofed log cabin that looked exactly like Jill’s. As promised, the key was under the mat, and Dan entered to wait out the storm. In order to stay warm, Dan removed some built-in wooden bookshelves from the wall and used them to build a fire in the fireplace. He also threw in some books that were on the shelves to keep the fire going. He slept in front of the fire, and the storm was over the following morning. Before leaving the cabin, Dan wrote Jill a note thanking her for the use of the cabin and apologizing for the missing shelves. He forgot to mention the books. He left his phone number and told her to give him a call. As it turns out, the cabin where Dan stayed was owned by Polly and not Jill. When Polly went to the cabin to open it for the summer, she noticed that her bookshelves and books were missing and found a note on the table from some fellow named Dan. Polly was outraged that a stranger would use her cabin without her permission, destroy the bookshelves, and take her books. She decided to sue Dan. 1. What tort cause(s) of action can Polly reasonably raise against Dan? Discuss. 2. What defense(s), if any, can Dan reasonably assert? Discuss. 3. What types of damages, if any, might Polly recover from Dan? Discuss.