$1.$June and April have a partnership. They have no agreement regarding profits, but they have a written agreement that states that they will share losses $75-25,$ whereby June will pay $75\%$ of the losses and April will pay $25\%$ of the losses. June has contributed $$100,000$ to the partnership, and April has contributed $$50,000$ to the partnership. If June and April's partnership earns $$1$ million in $2022,$ and the two partners argue over how much each partner may receive, the court applying RUPA will order that

A$)$ June will receive $$950,000$ and April will pay $$50,000$

B$)$ June will receive $$750,000$ and April will receive $$250,000$

C$)$ June will receive $$250,000$ and April will receive $$750,000$

D$)$ June will receive $$500,000$ and April will receive $$500,000$

$2.$In Lindh v$.$ Surman, where the parties disagreed, is:

A$)(1)$ what is the purpose of a gift $($i$.$e$.,$ a birthday gift or an anniversary gift$),$ and $(2)$ whether the age of the donor is relevant to determining return of the ring.

B$)(1)$ what is the condition of the gift $($i$.$e$.,$ acceptance of the engagement or the marriage itself$),$ and $(2)$

whether fault is relevant to determining return of the ring.

C$)(1)$ what is the purpose of a gift $($i$.$e$.,$ a graduation gift or an anniversary gift$),$ and $(2)$ whether the wealth of the donor is relevant to determining return of the ring.

D$)(1)$ what is the cost of a gift $($i$.$e$.,$ less than $$10,000$ or more than $$10,000),$ and $(2)$ whether the wealth of the donee is relevant to determining return of the ring.

$3.$The court in Zimmerman v$.$ Allen $(2011)$ determined that the law in $\_\_\_\_\_\_$ applied, specifically finding that as long as the instrument's testamentary terms are clear, a court may not decline to admit the will to probate simply because other terms are indefinite.

A$)$ In re Sogeti's Estate $($Ariz $2008)$

B$)$ In re Harris' Estate $($Ariz $1931)$

C$)$ Zimmerman v$.$ Miller's Estate $($Pa $2011)$

D$)$ In re Kelo's Estate $($Ariz $2012)$

$4.$The court ruled in favor of Eric Dare in the Housemen v$.$ Dare $(2009)$ case because the court found that another dog could just be purchased and therefore, specific performance was unwarranted. $$

A$)$ True

B$)$ False