I want to get these answers right away

Question 1

1pts

Parties to a lawsuit may waive personal jurisdiction.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 2

1pts

Some judicial systems build in cost-cutting measure such as six-person juries instead of twelve-person juries.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 3

1pts

With some exceptions, a party may delegate freely his or her duties under a contract.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 4

1pts

Parties to a lawsuit may waive their right to a jury trial.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 5

1pts

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted when the plaintiff and the defendant are unable to agree about important facts in the case.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 6

1pts

Case reports are official explanations of a court's decision-making process.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 7

1pts

By affirming, the appellate court rules that the lower court's decision is invalid.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 8

1pts

Determining what due process means in a given factual situation has been a matter for the legislative branch of government.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 9

1pts

Equitable claims are generally decided by the court not a jury.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 10

1pts

Questions of fact are for the judge and questions of law are for the jury.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 11

1pts

In civil litigation, due process rules ensure that the court has jurisdiction over the parties, the defendants have notice of the lawsuit and claims, and the parties have an equal opportunity to present evidence and argument to a neutral decision maker.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 12

1pts

The role of Congress is to interpret what the Constitution means.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 13

1pts

Every promise is a contract.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 14

1pts

Common law is the primary source of the law of contracts.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 15

1pts

In determining intent, courts generally use a subjective test; i.e., "What did the person actually mean by certain expressions"?

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 16

1pts

An offer can not be terminated simply by revocation.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 17

1pts

Contracts entered into on the basis of innocent misrepresentation are usually not voidable.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 18

1pts

The law recognizes all parties as having equal legal capacity to enter into contracts.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 19

1pts

Minors can refuse to carry out their part of an agreement while, at the same time, requiring the adult party to perform.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 20

1pts

If the parties to an illegal contract are unaware of its illegality, the contract is enforceable.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 21

1pts

An agreement to slander a third person is a legal contract because slander is a tort not a crime.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 22

1pts

Mutual promises to marry are always legally enforceable contracts.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 23

1pts

A warranty is a contractual obligation.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 24

1pts

Traditionally, punitive damages are rarely awarded in contract cases.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 25

1pts

Injunctive relief is never awarded in contract cases.

False

True

Flag this Question

Question 26

1pts

Either the plaintiff or the defendant may appeal a decision in a

Civil case.

Both a and b.

Neither a nor b.

Criminal case.

Flag this Question

Question 27

1pts

Which of the following is not a "fundamental right" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court?

right to make decisions about one's children's education

right to physician assisted suicide

right to get an abortion

right to make decisions about use of birth control

Question 55

1pts

Corporations are legal entities created and governed by federal law.

No answer text provided.

False

True

No answer text provided.

Flag this Question

Question 56

5pts

Fortuna is a LLC (limited liability corporation) incorporated in Washington state.Fortuna LLC makes handmade wooden flutes in Quincy, Washington and sells these flutes throughout the United States.Francis is an Idaho resident who was driving from Boise, Idaho to Seattle, Washington.On her way to Seattle, she stopped by the Fortuna warehouse and ordered 500 wooden flutes to be delivered to Boise, Idaho in 7 days.Francis signed a contract that specifically stated any disputes arising out of the contract would be subject to Washington law.When Francis returned to Boise, Idaho two weeks later, she was upset to learn that Fortuna failed to deliver the 500 wooden flutes.

Francis decided to sue Fortuna LLC in Idaho in federal court for breach of contract.Which law will the federal court apply to resolve this dispute?

1Washington, because the contract was entered into in Washington state

2Idaho, because the last act necessary to complete the contract (delivery of goods) was in Idao

3Federal common law, because the parties are in federal court

4Washington, because the contract specified Washington law would govern any disputes

Flag this Question

Question 57

5pts

Johan was a full time engineer who loved to make ice cream in his spare time. He developed a gluten free version that was popular among his friends, and he had quite a following of supporters.One of his friends Betty was so enthusiastic about Johan's ice cream that she invited Johan to start a company with her to produce and sell the ice cream.Betty was a marketing consultant and had expertise in marketing frozen foods.She knew there was a large unserved market in gluten free desserts.Betty and Johan agreed to form a partnership in which they would be 50/50 partners.In the partnership agreement, they included a term that required the partners to not engage in other activities that would compete with their ice cream business.

After a few months, Johan told Betty that he eventually wanted to expand the product line into ice creams that were not gluten free.Betty strongly opposed this type of expansion.Johan decided to partner with another dessert company to manufacture and sell his non-gluten free ice cream.

When Betty discovered this, she sued Johan claiming that he breached the partnership agreement's non-compete clause.At trial, Betty's lawyers want to introduce testimony from Johan's ex-wife that Johan had a gambling addiction and is a terrible father.Johan's lawyers' best argument to exclude this testimony is:

1the testimony is inadmissible hearsay

2John's personal life is irrelevant to the claim that he breached the non-compete clause

3the confidential marital communications privilege bars such testimony

4the fact of addiction is best evidenced through expert testimony

Flag this Question

Question 58

5pts

The City of Reval has required its police officers to wear body cameras while on duty.An investigative report revealed that some police officers, while off duty, were providing security services to illicit drug gangs.In response to community concerns about this, the City of Reval is considering a law requiring all police officers to wear body-cams at all times, even when off duty.The council members are concerned about whether this requirement would be unconstitutional and violate privacy rights of the police officers.The City in conjunction with the governor sought a legal opinion from the state supreme court on whether this proposed requirement would be unconstitutional.

The state supreme court could:

1provide a non-binding advisory legal opinion to the City assuming it is allowed for in the state constitution

2decline to provide an advisory opinion because there is no case or controversy

3both

4No answer text provided.

Flag this Question

Question 59

5pts

Rivets, Inc. is an Oregon corporation that manufactures custom rivets.Their specialty, advertised prominently on their marketing material, is large rush orders.Their brochure says "Rivets in a Rush- Guaranteed!"Rivets, Inc. advertises itself as one of the few companies in the United States that can handle large production of custom rivets delivered to the customer within 5 days of ordering.

Big Dog Construction Co. is a California construction company that constructs large skyscrapers.It is working on a skycraper in Texas that is five months over schedule.Their rivet supplier has gone out of business and Big Dog is in dire need of custom rivets as soon as possible.

John of Big Dog Construction calls Rivets, Inc. and speaks to the sales manager, Gene.John says, "Gene, I need 500,000 custom rivets in 5 days.I'll pay 1.5 times your current market price."Gene says that they are booked with other jobs but could probably provide 300,000 rivets in 7 days if Rivets, Inc. was able to add extra shifts.John gets on a plane and hand delivers the design for the custom rivets and payment for 300,000 rivets to Rivets, Inc.'s headquarters in California.The next day, Gene learned that the manufacturing plant was fully booked and the soonest they could provide 300,000 rivets to Big Dog was 10 days later.Gene conveyed this information to John via email and did not hear back from John.Gene directed the accounting department to return Big Dog's check via U.S. mail.

Ten days later, John calls Gene extremely upset asking where the 300,000 rivets are.Gene says that he never heard back from John and assumed that Big Dog found rivets somewhere else.Big Dog is now even more delayed on its skyscraper project and wants to sue Rivets, Inc. for damages arising out of breach of contract.

The court will likely conclude that:

1Big Dog is entitled to equitable relief because Gene knew about the time sensitivity but emailed John instead of calling.

2no contract was formed because John failed to accept Gene's counteroffer.

3a valid contract was formed because John's immediate payment was acceptance of a valid counteroffer to provide the rivets in 7 days.

4Rivets, Inc. violated its guarantee to provide custom rivets in 5 days

Flag this Question

Question 60

5pts

Omar studied electrical engineering in college and made a lucrative career selling large engine parts to airlines.His combination of technical knowledge and sales savvy provided him numerous career opportunities.In April of 2016, Omar was recruited by Juneho, the President of AirParts, Inc. to be AirParts' Vice President of Global Sales.AirParts, Inc. was a promising startup that developed engine parts for space shuttles.Juneho recruited Omar because he was negotiating a sale of 49% of his company to a New York investor and wanted to bolster sales to negotiate a higher sale price.

Juneho offered Omar a base salary of $250,000 plus a 1.5% sales commission.Omar said that he had a similar compensation package with his current employer and asked for equity in AirParts as additional compensation.Juneho agreed to give Omar 3% equity in the company, which was then valued at $15 million.Juneho knew at the time that the New York investor would require him to retain 51% equity if the sale went through.Omar agreed and then entered into an employment agreement that, among other things, allowed employees to participate in a stock option plan.The agreement did not grant Omar any equity in the company.Omar understood that he would be automatically granted equity in the company based on his conversations with Juneho.The agreement did have a non-compete clause prohibiting Omar from working for a competitor until 1 year after he separates from the company.

In April of 2017, Juneho completed the sale of 49% of AirParts to the New York investor.The New York investor demanded that his brother be the Vice President of Global Sales instead of Omar.Omar was laid off and given a 1-year severance.Omar demanded that he be bought out of his 3% equity stake in AirParts, but learned that Juneho never did the paperwork to issue that equity to Omar.Furthermore, Juneho could not give Omar 3% equity because he sold 49% of his equity to the New York investor and his partnership agreement with the New York investor required Juneho to remain a 51% owner.

Omar sued AirParts and Juneho for rescission of the contract, fraud and promissory estoppel.AirParts counterclaimed for breach of noncompete provisions since Omar went to work for a competitor.

The court will likely find that:

1evidence regarding Juneho's promise to give Omar 3% equity would be inadmissible under the parol-evidence rule.

2if Omar proves that he relied on Juneho's false promises to enter into the employment agreement, the contract can be rescinded.

3the non-compete provision can be enforced against Omar because Omar agreed to the non-compete clause.

4Omar is not entitled to equitable relief because he should have protected himself.