MBE Practice Test 1 questions and answers 2022/2023

In need of money, the owner of a ring prepared an email one evening proposing to sell the ring to a friend for $500, but only if he responded within 24 hours. Unable to bring herself to send the email, the owner, who normally was a teetotaler, began drinking. When she was thoroughly intoxicated, she sent the email without realizing it. After the owner sobered up the following afternoon, she called her friend and said that she had never meant to send the email, but her friend informed her that he had already responded by email, agreeing to the transaction. Does a valid contract exist? Yes, because the friend accepted the owner's offer to sell the ring. Yes, because the friend had 24 hours in which to respond. No, because the owner lacked capacity at the time that she made the offer. No, because the contract was executory. A A wife owned a pistol, which she kept loaded in a locked safe in her bedroom. Unbeknownst to the wife, her husband took the pistol, fired it at a pesky squirrel until it was empty, and returned the empty pistol to the safe. Shortly thereafter, the wife returned home to find her husband and sister alone in the house. The wife, having long harbored jealousy over the close relationship between her husband and sister, decided to teach them a lesson. She got the pistol, pointed it at her husband and sister, and threatened to shoot them. She never intended to shoot them, but merely to scare them. The husband and sister have sued the wife for assault. Is either the husband or sister likely to prevail in an action for assault? No, neither will prevail because the wife did not intend to shoot either the sister or husband. No, neither will prevail because the pistol was unloaded. Yes, the sister alone will prevail because she did not know the pistol was unloaded. Yes, both plaintiffs will prevail because they can each prove the elements for assault. C 00:31 01:21 An attorney was sued by a client for malpractice. The client obtained a judgment against the attorney and, by filing the judgment in the county in which the attorney rented an office, created a lien that was valid against any real property then owned or subsequently acquired by the attorney for up to 10 years. Three years later, the attorney purchased a residence in the same county. The attorney financed the purchase with a loan from a bank, which was secured by a mortgage on the residence. Two years later, the attorney failed to make the required mortgage payments. The bank initiated foreclosure proceedings, joining the client as a party. The jurisdiction has adopted the following statute: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In addition, the jurisdiction treats a mortgage as a lien against the real property. Who has priority to the proceeds from the foreclosure sale? The client, because the lien was first in time. The client, because the lien was recorded first. The bank, because the lien is not affected by the foreclosure sale. The bank, because the mortgage was a purchase money mortgage. D Twenty years ago, a property owner deeded his house to a charitable organization. The warranty deed stated that the house was transferred to the organization "provided that the organization uses the premises as a halfway house for troubled teenagers; otherwise, the owner may reenter the property." Nine years after the property was transferred, the charitable organization ceased running a halfway house, and began using the house as its administrative office. Recently, upon the death of the property owner, all of his real property passed by will to his daughter. The time period for adverse possession in the state where the house is located is 10 years. Does the charitable organization have a current possessory interest in the house? No, because the charitable organization ceased to use the house as a halfway house. No, because the owner devised his interest in the house to his daughter. Yes, because the charitable organization has outright ownership of the house through adverse possession. Yes, because the right of re-entry has not been exercised. D A homeowner devised her home to her best friend, "but if [the best friend] predeceases me, to her heirs." The best friend died shortly before the homeowner did. The best friend is survived by her daughter, and the homeowner is survived by her son. The best friend's daughter claims that she should take the home, while the homeowner's son claims that it should pass with the rest of the homeowner's estate. The applicable jurisdiction has an anti-lapse statute. Who should receive the homeowner's home? The best friend's daughter, because of the anti-lapse statute. The best friend's daughter, because the homeowner left the home to the best friend and her heirs. The homeowner's son, because the gift lapsed. The homeowner's son, because the homeowner and the best friend were not related by blood. B A homeowner hired a roofer to install a new roof on his house. The homeowner scheduled the installation to take place during a week when he was to be on vacation. Although the contract specified that the color of the shingles was to be brown, the homeowner returned to find that the roofer instead had installed red shingles. Although the new roof was structurally sound, the homeowner refused the pay the roofer. The roofer sued the homeowner. The fact-finder determined that the roofer had materially breached the contract. Under what theory of damages is the roofer most likely to recover? Expectancy damages Restitution damages Reliance damages None, because the roofer materially breached the contract. B A woman built a water fountain in her backyard. The water fountain was located in the center of a flat, concrete surface, and the water from the fountain would drain through holes in the concrete surface. At night, the water falling from the fountain would change colors with the use of colored lights. Because the neighborhood children were enthralled by the fountain, but the concrete was very slippery, the woman erected a five-foot fence around her backyard with a locked gate that could only be opened with a passcode. In addition, she posted warning signs telling trespassers to keep out. One evening, a child saw the changing colors of the water over the fence. Unable to open the gate, the child got a ladder from his parent's yard and used it to climb over the fence. As he approached the fountain, the child slipped on the wet concrete surface, fell to the ground, and fractured his wrist. The parents of the child have filed a claim for damages against the woman. Who will prevail? The child, because the fountain was an attractive nuisance. The child, because the slippery concrete surface posed an unreasonable risk of injury to children. The woman, because she does not owe a duty to the child since he is an unknown trespasser. The woman, because she exercised reasonable care to protect children from harm. D A buyer agreed in writing to purchase sports memorabilia related to a legendary sports figure, which was on display at a museum, from the owner for $500,000. The agreement called for the payment to be made and the memorabilia handed over at the end of the display period, 60 days after the agreement was signed by both parties. Forty-five days later, a record held by the sports legend was broken and the fair market value of the memorabilia dropped to $275,000. The buyer repudiated the contract. The following week, before the owner could locate another buyer, the memorabilia, on loan for public display, was destroyed by no fault of either the buyer or the owner. The owner had only insured the memorabilia for $100,000. How much is the owner likely to recover from the buyer? $500,000. $400,000. $275,000. $225,000. B In July, a toy store entered into a written agreement with a local supplier for 500 Halloween costumes at $25 per costume. Under the agreement, the costumes were to be delivered on or before October 1. On August 17, the supplier told the store that it would not under any circumstances be able to supply the costumes. The next day, the store contracted with a company to supply 500 similar Halloween costumes for $30 each for delivery on or before October 5. On September 1, the store filed a complaint against the local supplier for breach of contract. The supplier moves to dismiss the complaint. How should the court rule on this motion? Deny it, because the complaint for breach was brought within 15 days of the supplier notifying the store it would not be able to supply the costumes. Deny it, because the supplier repudiated its contractual obligation. Grant it, because less than 30 days had expired since the supplier told the store it would not be able to supply the costumes before the store filed its complaint. Grant it, because the time for performance of the contract has not yet passed. B A homeowner borrowed money from a bank in order to install a deck at her residence. The bank loan, which was evidenced by a note that contained an acceleration clause, was secured by a five-year mortgage on the residence. The bank promptly recorded this mortgage. Two years later, the homeowner sold the residence to a buyer. The agreement between the homeowner and the buyer provided for the buyer to assume the mortgage. The bank was not a party to this agreement and did not provide any consideration to the buyer for entering into this agreement. Six months after the buyer took possession of the residence, the buyer stopped making payments on the loan. The bank initiated an action against the buyer for the outstanding balance due on the home improvement loan. Is the buyer liable to the bank for the outstanding balance? Yes, because the buyer agreed to assume the homeowner's mortgage obligation. Yes, because the buyer is in possession of the residence. No, because the bank was not a party to the agreement between the homeowner and buyer. No, because the buyer did not receive consideration from the bank for agreeing to assume the loan obligation. A A hardware store owner observed a customer looking at a display of chain saws. The customer asked the owner which of two brands he would recommend. The owner said, "I swear by Brand X. In my opinion they make the best chain saws." In making this statement, the owner had no intent to offer the customer a warranty. The customer purchased a Brand X chain saw. On the customer's sales receipt, was printed, "All warrantees, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed." The chain saw malfunctioned, resulting in serious injury to the customer. The customer sued the store owner for breach of an express warranty. Of the following, which would be the store owner's best defense? The store owner did not use the words "warranty" or "guarantee." The store owner did not intend to offer a warranty. Any express warranty was disclaimed by the sale receipt. The store owner's words constituted his opinion. D A tool distributor sold a retailer an assortment of tools on credit. Immediately prior to the sale, the distributor, concerned about the retailer's financial health, telephoned the retailer to ask if the retailer would be able to pay for the tools. The retailer assured the distributor that it was solvent, even though the retailer knew it might not be before it paid for the tools. Twelve days after the retailer received the tools, the distributor learned that the retailer was insolvent and immediately sought to reclaim the tools. Can the distributor do so? No, because the retailer had retained the tools for twelve days. No, because the retailer had received the tools. Yes, because the retailer had falsely assured the distributor that it was solvent. Yes, because the distributor acted immediately upon learning that the retailer was insolvent. A When a buyer receives goods on credit, and the seller learns that the buyer is insolvent, the seller may reclaim the goods, provided a demand is made within 10 days after the buyer's receipt of the goods.