David and Danny were drinking at the same bar when David began insulting Danny by calling him names that were ethnically offensive. When they started to argue with each other, the bartender asked them both to leave. David got up and walked out of the bar. Angry, Danny began following him, also on foot. David did not know he was being followed. Along the way, Danny picked up a baseball bat. When he caught up with David, Danny swung the baseball bat and hit Davids head from behind. David never saw Danny or the baseball bat. Assume for this question that the jurisdiction applies strict common law tort principles.

If David institutes an action against Danny, a court should hold Danny liable in tort for:

	A.	Both assault and battery.
	B.	Assault only.
	C.	Neither assault nor battery.
	D.	Battery only.

2.

Dutt and Noah had completed an agreement of purchase and sale for widgets. Noah was the buyer and Dutt was the seller. Unknown to both Dutt and Noah, a cargo boat carrying the widgets was destroyed the night after by a bolt of lightning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Noah sues Dutt in Superior Court for breach of contract. What will the court do?

	A.	The court will declare that there was a shared mistake resulting in a void contract.
	B.	The court will declare that there was frustration resulting in a discharged contract.
	C.	The court will declare that there was frustration resulting in a voidable contract.
	D.	The court will declare that there was a shared mistake resulting in a voidable contract.

3.

Sometimes a contract anticipates some catastrophic event, such as a riot, invasion, earthquake, or flood that will interfere with the performance of the contract. This is referred to as:

	A.	A non est factum clause.
	B.	A caveat emptor clause.
	C.	A rescission clause.
	D.	A force majeure clause.

4.

April and Ann are residents of the Kunduri Kingdom. The Kunduri Kingdom is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy reigned over by King Dutt The First. Its legislators are quite lazy and not one statute has been passed. As a result, the Kunduri Kingdom operates on the basis of strict common law.

April and Ann walk into a bar. April ordered a bottle of ginger beer for Ann. After consuming some of it, Ann discovered part of a decomposed snail at the bottom of her bottle. Ann became very ill as a result of drinking the contaminated beverage. Ann plans on suing based on contract and asks you for legal advice. What do you say?

	A.	Ann is able to sue in contract because she has privity of contract with the bar. She has no privity with the ginger beer manufacturer and cannot sue in negligence because neither the manufacturer nor the bar owed her a duty of care.
	B.	Ann is unable to sue in contract because she lacks privity and she is unable to sue in tort because neither the bar nor the manufacturer owe her a duty of care. She must hope parliament passes a consumer protection statute.
	C.	Ann is unable to sue the bar and the manufacturer in contract because she lacks privity. She may be able to sue in negligence because the manufacturer owed Ann a duty of care under the reasonable foreseeability test.
	D.	Ann is able to sue in contract although she lacks privity with both the bar and the manufacturer under the Kunduri Kingdoms consumer protection statutes.

5.

Nancy had a 19 year old daughter named Guylaine. Guylaine wanted a loan for $50,000 from Sleazy Bank to buy a new dress. Not confident in Guylaines credit rating, Sleazy Bank wanted Nancy to guarantee the promissory note that Guylaine had signed. Nancy agreed and proceeded to travel with Guylaine to Sleazy Bank. The bank handed Nancy a document which was a mortgage agreement to sign. The language of the mortgage agreement was very similar to the language normally used in a guarantee of a promissory note. Nancy read the entire mortgage document carefully and signed the document, believing it was a guarantee for Guylaines promissory note. Within a month Nancy gets bank statements in the mail indicating that she owes interest on a mortgage. What is Nancys best legal theory if she wishes to eliminate paying mortgage interest?

	A.	Non Est Factum Nancy was led to believe she was acting as a guarantee on a promissory note and not signing a mortgage agreement. Therefore there was no consensus and the contract is void.
	B.	One Sided Mistake Nancy made a one-sided mistake so profound that consensus was destroyed because she had misidentified one of the parties to the contract. The contract is therefore void.
	C.	Duress Nancy was pressured to enter the mortgage contract against her will. The contract is voidable.
	D.	Negligent Misrepresentation Nancy was induced to signing the mortgage document because the banks representative made a misleading statement. Nancy is entitled to damages and rescission