1. Computers, Inc. has an employee who has special accommodation needs in order toperform her job. These special accommodations would cost Computers $10,000 toimplement. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that an employer isrequired to make reasonable accommodation for employees with a disability, but doesnot define reasonable accommodation. Assume that the size of an employer-company determines the maximum amount of money that would be reasonable for an employer to spend to make reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee. Under the principle of stare decisis, determine which of the following would apply to Computers.

A. If a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation, Computers likely would be required to spend the $10,000.

B. If a similar-sized employer-company had not been required to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation, this would ensure that Computers would not have to spend the $10,000.

C. Whether a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation would be irrelevant for Computers because it occurred in the past.

D. Whether a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation would be irrelevant for Computers; courts make all decisions on a case-by- case basis.

2. A city ordinance permits street vendors to operate only within certain commercialareas of the city to prevent dangerous traffic congestion. The street vendors sued the city claiming that the restrictions were a violation of their equal protection rights as other businesses are not restricted to operating only in certain commercial areas within the city. How would you classify the ordinance?

A. Constitutional; because the city has a justifiable purpose in enacting the ordinance, it does not violate the equal protection rights of street vendors.

B. Constitutional; because street vendors are private businesses, they are not protected by the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment.

C. Unconstitutional; the ordinance unduly discriminates against street vendors as compared to other business owners and thus, violates the vendors equal protection rights.

D. Unconstitutional; privately owned vendors, unlike public businesses, have a constitutional right to conduct business in any commercial area of their choice.

3. Assume that Virginia enacted a law prohibiting, until further notice, all grocery storesin Virginia from selling all powdered spices manufactured in, or shipped from, Maryland. This law was enacted because it was discovered that the spices recently manufactured in Maryland were infected with bacteria. Determine the constitutionality of the Marylandstatute. The statute is:

A. Unconstitutional; it violates grocery store owners substantive and procedural due process rights under the 5 th and 14 th Amendments because they are private businesses.

B. Unconstitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

C. Constitutional; it is a valid exercise of Marylands police power.

D. Constitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on intrastate and interstate commerce.

4. Jack and Jo, residents of Colorado, were hiking in Nevada when a dog being walkedby its owner, Will, bit Jo causing injury. Jack wants Jo to sue Will, a resident of Montana,but Jo does not want to incur the cost of a lawsuit. Identify which of the following bestillustrates Jacks legal right to sue in this case.

A. Jack has standing to sue Will, but only in federal court since Colorado, Nevada and Montana state courts all meet the minimum contacts test for jurisdiction.

B. Jack has standing to sue Will, but only in Nevada because neither Colorado nor Montana meets the minimum contacts test for jurisdiction.

C. Jack does not have standing to sue Will in Nevada, Colorado or Montana.

D. Jack does not have standing to sue Will because he is not a resident of Nevada where the injury to Jo occurred.

5. Saul orally agreed to sell Ramie some land for $500,000. Ramie paid Saul the $500,000; Saul gave Ramie the deed to the land. Ramie took possession of the land and began building a cabin on it. One month later, Saul tried to retake possession of the land by arguing that the contract for the sale was invalid because it was oral, not written. Saul sued Ramie to invalidate the contract and retake the land. The court will likely conclude that Sam will:

A. Win; the sale exceeded $500 so the contract must be written to be valid.

B. Win; all land sales contracts must be written.

C. Lose; because the contract was fully executed Saul cannot rescind the contract.

D. Lose; because Ramie had begun building a cabin on the property, Saulcannot rescind the contract.

6. On Tuesday, Sam offered to sell his CD collection to Sandy for $100. Sandy replied, "I'm interested. I'll think it over and let you know Thursday whether I want to buy the CDs." On Wednesday, Sam agreed to sell the CDs to Jason, and Jason immediately gave Sam a letter that stated: "Sam, I will buy your CD collection for $100. As we agreed, I will pay you on Friday when I pick up the CDs. Yours truly, Jason." Upon Sam's receipt of this letter on Wednesday, what best describes Sams contract agreement(s)?

A. By forming an agreement with Jason, Sam breached his contract with Sandy because he did not effectively revoke his offer to Sandy.

B. Sam has formed contracts with both Jason and Sandy because Sam did not effectively revoke his offer to Sandy and created an enforceable written agreement with Jason.

C. Sam and Jason have formed a valid, enforceable contract; Sams offer to Sandy was properly revoked.

D. Sam effectively revoked his offer to Sandy, but has not formed an enforceable contract with Jason because Jason has not yet paid for the CD collection.

7. Ed hired Frankie, who is 13 years old, to buy a computer on Eds behalf. Which of the following identifies the legal relationship between Ed and Frankie?

A. This is a valid agency relationship even though Frankie is a minor, and Ed would be bound by authorized contracts Frankie enters into on Eds behalf.

B. This is a valid agency relationship even though Frankie is a minor, but Ed would have the option of disaffirming any contracts Frankie enters into on Eds behalf.

C. This is a valid agency relationship even though Frankie is a minor, but Frankie would not be entitled to any payment under the terms of the agency because he is a minor.

D. This is an invalid agency relationship because Frankie is a minor.

8. Ann drove her car to an automatic car wash and went through the washing/cleaningprocess. Customers are expected to pay after completing the washing/cleaning process, but Ann refused to pay for the car wash. A court would most likely conclude that:

A. Applying the subjective intent test, Ann is not bound to pay for the car wash because she believed that it was a free service.

B. Applying the objective test, there was no clearly communicated offer and acceptance, thus no enforceable contract; Ann is not bound to pay for the car wash.

C. Anns actions implied that she intended to pay for the wash; she is legally bound to pay for the car wash.

D. Anns actions implied that she intended to pay for the wash, but she is not legally bound to pay for the car wash as there was no written agreement.

9. Mac and Rhamad signed a business contract with a clause that provides that if a dispute arises they must submit to binding arbitration to resolve the dispute. After they had been doing business together for a year, a dispute arose under the terms of the contract. Rather than submit to arbitration, Mac filed a lawsuit against Rhamad. Most likely the court will:

A. Hear the lawsuit because Mac cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration; he is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial if he requests a trial.

B. Conduct a bench trial, then order a remedy without compelling Mac to submit to arbitration or to a jury trial.

C. Compel Mac to submit to arbitration to resolve the dispute.

D. Hear the lawsuit in a trial, then compel Mac to submit to arbitration, if Mac is not satisfied with the trial decision.

10. Nat signed a two-year contract to play soccer for the Scores, for $100,000 per game. During the second year of his contract, and just before a big game, Nat demanded that the team owner pay him an additional $5000 per game on his contract, starting with the current game. The owner reluctantly agreed to the new contract terms because Nat was the teams leading scorer. At the end of the season, Nat demanded the additional $5000 per game; the owner refused to pay. What best describes the new contract between Nat and the owner?

A. It is unenforceable because the owner agreed to Nats contract terms under economic duress.

B. It is unenforceable because both parties did not give new legal consideration for the new contract.

C. It is enforceable because both parties gave legal consideration for the new contract.

D. It is enforceable because under the UCC rules, all contract modifications are valid if the parties consent.

11. Roxy, while driving through Wyoming to her home in Montana, accidentally lost control of her car and drove it through a window into a store owned by Colt. Colt sued Roxy in a Wyoming court for damages to his store. Will the Wyoming court likely be able to exercise jurisdiction over Roxy?

A. no, because Wyoming has no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot exercise its long arm statute only in cases involving automobile accidents.

B. no, because Wyoming has no in personam jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot justify minimum contacts in this case.

C. yes, Wyoming can exercise in personam jurisdiction in this case because any state court has personal jurisdiction in every diversity of citizenship case.

D. yes, because Wyoming can assert in personam jurisdiction over Roxy under the minimum contacts test.

12. Assume a salesperson intentionally made one of the following statements - knowing that the statement was false - to a customer considering a purchase. Which statement could create liability for fraudulent misrepresentation if the customer made the purchase?

A. In my opinion, this car is in flawless mechanical condition.

B. This crane will probably lift about 10,000 pounds.

C. This car is a real gem.

D. This is an original painting by the artist, Pablo Picasso.

13. Buildings-R- Us (BRU), a construction company, was hired to blast a hole for a newbuildings foundation.

A box of dynamite, sitting on the construction site, ready for use inthe blasting, spontaneously exploded and injured 2 passing motorists. If the motorists sue BRU, identify the likely result. BRU will be held: A. Not liable under strict liability because BRU had not yet actually ignited the dynamite.

B. Not liable under any legal doctrine as it was not foreseeable that the dynamite would spontaneously explode.

C. Liable under negligence because dynamite is abnormally dangerous.

D. Liable under strict liability because dynamite is abnormally dangerous.

14. Kim carelessly parked her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolled down the hill and knocked down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire that spread to a barn several yards away. The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence?

A. Yes, because Kim was negligent in parking the car.

B. Yes, because Kim set in motion the chain of events that resulted in damage to Rays car, even though Kim did not directly hit the car.

C. No, because of the unforeseeable intervening force doctrine.

D. No, regardless of Kims negligence in parking the car as her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and harm that occurred to Ray.

15 . Lee sued Don in negligence. Lis losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Lee is found to be contributorily negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Lee like recover from Don?

A. None.

B. $100,000.

C. $100,000 minus the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Leewas responsible.

D. $100,000 minus the percentage of fault for which Lee was responsible, so long as Lee was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries.