Oscar was declared insane and committed to a state mental hospital in 1948. In 1955, Oscar executed and delivered to Robert a deed for Cattle Acre which is a 200 acre parcel of land enclosed by barbed wire fences. There is a solid wood fence running through the middle of Cattle Acre which separates the property into approximately equal segments, one on the west and the other on the east. Robert recorded the deed, entered the land, and began grazing cattle on the westerly parcel. Nobody besides Robert has been in possession of Cattle Acre since 1955 and Robert's possession has only been on the westerly parcel. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession is 15 years, but there is an insanity disability rule in the jurisdiction which tolls the running of the time period. In 1965, Oscar was released from the hospital, but he took no action against Robert until 1978, when he brought an action to eject Robert on the ground that he, Oscar, held the paramount title to Cattle Acre. In this action, Robert will:

Question 1 options:

a)	Win, because he has acquired title to Cattle Acre by adverse possession.

b)	Win, but only as to the westerly parcel because that is the portion of the land which he actually occupied during his adverse possession.

c)	Lose, because Oscar can assert the defense of laches because Robert did not bring an action to quiet his title within a reasonable time after the statute had run.

d)	Lose, because Oscar was insane during the period 1955 to 1965.

Question 2 (1 point)

Buddy negotiated and obtained a written option to purchase Wilson Acres from Sally who was the record owner. The price was $500,000 and the option fee was $10,000, which Buddy paid to Sally. The next day Buddy gave Charlie an option to purchase the land for $600,000 plus an option fee of $15,000, which Charlie paid to Buddy. One week later, Charlie exercised his option, and within 10 days' time, Buddy was able to exercise his option with Sally and to obtain title to Wilson Acres. Thereafter, Buddy tendered his deed to Charlie, but Charlie refused to go through with the deal on the ground that Buddy did not have title to the land when Buddy gave the option to Charlie. Buddy brought an action against Charlie for specific performance or, in the alternative, for damages, if the court denied the request for specific performance. Charlie counterclaimed for rescission of the contract. In this action, the court will most likely:

Question 2 options:

a)	Grant specific performance of the contract to Buddy because Buddy had a valid option to purchase the property from Sally.

b)	Deny specific performance, because the legal remedy of damages is adequate and award those damages to Buddy.

c)	Deny specific performance, but permit Buddy to retain the $15,000 option fee.

d)	Rescind the contract because Buddy did not have title at the time he contracted with Charlie and require Buddy to refund the $15,000.

Question 3 (1 point)

Mark had been searching for undeveloped acreage with water sufficient to support 100 head of cattle. He planned to start a cattle operation to provide an economic base for a dude ranch. He then planned to hire a ranch manager to run the cattle operation while he devoted his time to the design and construction necessary to draw the young wealthy set to his ranch. Mark learned that Robert had put 300 acres of his property on the market. The next day, Mark went to Robert's office and signed a contract for the purchase of the 300 acres. The contract specified a 10-day escrow because Mark was eager to get cows while the prices were low. Three days after Mark had executed the contract, he discovered that the back three acres of the property were covered by a swamp. A local zoning regulation regulating the use of wetlands prevented all building on the portion of the land covered by the swamp. Mark called Robert and told him the land was simply not adequate for his intended use. At the end of the 10-day escrow period, Robert tendered his deed. Mark refused to close the sale. Robert sued Mark for specific performance of the land sale contract. Mark claimed that the contract is unenforceable because title to the property is not marketable. What is the result?

Question 3 options:

a)	The contract is not enforced because Robert did not disclose the existence of the swampland.

b)	The contract is not enforced because the zoning regulation imposes an unreasonable restraint on construction.

c)	The contract is not enforced because the zoning regulation is a matter of public record which will cause the title to be unmarketable.

d)	The contact is enforced because the zoning regulation is not a title defect that makes Robert's title unmarketable.

Question 4 (1 point)

Gerhard tired of his job as a mechanic for a large trucking corporation and decided to go into business for himself. He rented a small commercial space and went into business as an auto mechanic, and also made a few sales in auto parts. Gerhard was a good mechanic and a great salesman, but a horrible bookkeeper, and he soon was unable to meet his expenses. Generic Motors, Inc., from whom he had purchased auto parts wholesale, obtained a judgment against him for $4,000 and promptly and properly recorded that judgment in the County of Cork. By statute, a judgment lien is valid against any after-acquired property of the debtor. Gerhard had no assets, and although he obtained a job at a service station, he was unable to make any payments to Generic on its judgment. Gerhard moved to another city and opened another small auto shop on rented premises, with the same unfortunate result collapse followed by a judgment in favor of Snappy Auto Parts Company in the amount of $3,000. Snappy recorded its judgment in the County of Cork. After a few more years as a wage slave, Gerhard decided to give self-employment one more chance. He had thought long on his past problems and concluded that he needed to own his own premises rather than rent. He persuaded his Uncle Max to lend him $30,000 to purchase a small lot and building in the dilapidated wharf area of the city; Max insisted that Gerhard execute a promissory note and mortgage in Max's favor. Max promptly recorded the mortgage in the County of Cork. This time, Gerhard's business went into the dumpster faster than ever no one was willing to come to the disreputable wharf area to have their car serviced. Gerhard defaulted on the mortgage, and Max sought to foreclose. Generic and Snappy discovered Gerhard's asset and have intervened in the proceedings. By the time the property was sold at a judicial sale, land values in the wharf area were rising due to a rumored renovation project. A statute in the jurisdiction provides that a purchase money mortgage takes priority over all other interests attached to the land. After the costs of administration have been paid, how should the court allocate the remaining $32,000 in foreclosure proceeds?

Question 4 options:

a)	$30,000 to Max, $2,000 to Generic, and nothing to Snappy.

b)	$30,000 to Max, $1,000 to Generic, and $1,000 to Snappy.

c)	$4,000 to Generic, $3,000 to Snappy, and $25,000 to Max.

d)	$30,000 to Max, $2,000 to Gerhard, and nothing to Generic and Snappy, whose liens were wiped out by the judicial foreclosure.

Question 5 (1 point)

Bruno was a geologist who did some oil exploration work on land owned by Selland, at Selland's request. Bruno did not find any oil, but admired the desert property so much that he asked if Selland would be willing to sell any of it. After driving out to the property and discussing the matter, Selland agreed to sell Bruno a five-acre area the two of them paced off, which was bordered on the south by Arroyo Grande, a dry creek-bed that ran through Selland's parcel. Bruno wrote the following on a piece of notepaper: "I, Selland, agree to sell to Bruno, for $10,000, the five acres of land north of Arroyo Grande which we examined this day." Bruno added a statement that the property sold was part of Selland's 100-acre parcel, and included an accurate, unambiguous description of that 100-acre parcel. Selland and Bruno read and signed the paper. A week later, Selland tendered to Bruno a deed to a five-acre portion of Selland's 100-acre parcel. Bruno, who had some familiarity with land surveying, believed that the description of the property conveyed in the deed did not refer to the five acres he and Selland had agreed to, and insisted that Selland execute a new deed accurately describing the property sold. When Selland refused, Bruno declared that their land sale agreement had been breached by Selland and that he would seek legal recourse. Bruno subsequently filed an action to recover damages for breach of the land sale contract against Selland. It was established at trial that the deed contained a legally adequate metes and bounds description of a five-acre portion of Selland's property, but that the five acres described in the deed were not the same five acres that Selland and Bruno had discussed. Selland raised as a defense to the breach of contract claim that the contract was unenforceable because it did not adequately describe the land that was to be conveyed. The court should find in favor of:

Question 5 options:

a)	Bruno, if he can produce extrinsic evidence sufficient to clarify the contract's description of the land to be conveyed.

b)	Bruno, because it is not a defense to an action for damages arising from breach of a land sale contract that the contract did not adequately describe the land to be conveyed.

c)	Selland, because Bruno's rights merged into the deed, which contained a legally sufficient description of the land conveyed.

d)	Selland, because extrinsic evidence may not be admitted to supply a legally sufficient description of land to be conveyed in a land sale contract which lacks such a description.

Question 6 (1 point)

Questions 6 and 7 are based on the same fact pattern. On February 26, Cell and Purch entered into a written contract for the sale of Cellacre, a parcel of land improved with a residence. The sale price was $50,000, with $5,000 paid on signing the contract. The balance was to be paid on delivery of the deed prior to April 15, and Cell was to remain in possession until that time. On March 10, prior to the closing, the house was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. The house was worth $40,000 and the land $10,000. Neither Cell nor Purch had insurance. After the fire, Purch asserted that the sale was rescinded because the subject matter of the transaction had been substantially destroyed. She also demanded the return of her deposit. Cell counterclaimed for specific performance. In a jurisdiction which applies common law rules regarding risk of loss, which of the following arguments best supports Cell's position?

Question 6 options:

a)	Purch's claim is without merit since the subject matter of the sale is a parcel of realty, and the parcel is still in existence.

b)	Purch had an insurable interest as a result of the purchase contract, and if she neglected to insure against casualty loss, she did so at her peril.

c)	Since Purch contracted to purchase the realty, she accepted the risk of any fluctuations in value which resulted from foreseeable natural phenomena.

d)	The doctrine of equitable conversion regards the purchaser as an owner.

Question 7 (1 point)

Questions 6 and 7 are based on the same fact pattern: On February 26, Cell and Purch entered into a written contract for the sale of Cellacre, a parcel of land improved with a residence. The sale price was $50,000, with $5,000 paid on signing the contract. The balance was to be paid on delivery of the deed prior to April 15, and Cell was to remain in possession until that time. On March 10, prior to the closing, the house was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. The house was worth $40,000 and the land $10,000. Neither Cell nor Purch had insurance. After the fire, Purch asserted that the sale was rescinded because the subject matter of the transaction had been substantially destroyed. She also demanded the return of her deposit. Cell counterclaimed for specific performance. In a jurisdiction which has enacted the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act, which of the following is the most likely result in the actions between Purch and Cell?

Question 7 options:

a)	Purch is required to purchase Cellacre without any abatement of the purchase price.

b)	Purch is required to purchase Cellacre, but with an abatement of the purchase price equal to the diminution in value which resulted from the damage.

c)	Purch is not required to purchase Cellacre, but is not entitled to the return of her $5,000 deposit.

d)	Purch is not required to purchase Cellacre, and is entitled to the return of her $5,000 deposit.

Question 8 (1 point)

On June 1, Sally and Burton entered into a written contract for the purchase and sale of Sally's real estate. The contract described the real estate, fixed a purchase price, required that it be paid in full and in cash upon delivery of a deed, and set a closing date of August 1, but was silent about the quality of title which Sally was required to convey. On July 25, Burton advised Sally that he would not go through with the transaction. On August 1, Sally tendered a deed, which Burton refused to accept. In an action by Sally against Burton for breach of contract, a court is most likely to hold that the contract of June 1:

Question 8 options:

a)	Was unenforceable because it was not sufficiently definite in its terms regarding the quality of title Sally was required to convey

b)	Required Sally to convey marketable title.

c)	Required Sally to convey whatever title she held on June 1.

d)	Required Sally to convey whatever title she held on June 1, together with any additional interest which she owned at the time of closing.

Question 9 (1 point)

Warren was the owner in fee simple of Goldacre, a well-developed piece of land. Warren entered into a contract with Paul, whereby Paul was to purchase Goldacre. The contract provided that, "because of economic uncertainties, time is of the essence in this contract." Both Warren and Paul signed the contract and the time for closing was stated in the contract as March 10. According to the contract, "on March 10, Paul promises to deliver the purchase money to escrow and Warren promises to deliver the deed to escrow." On March 7, Paul became seriously ill and was hospitalized. Due to his illness, Paul was unable to deliver the money to the escrow office until March 15. Due to the delay, Warren refused to go through with the sale agreement and Paul brought suit seeking specific performance of the contract. Paul will:

Question 9 options:

a)	Prevail, assuming Warren suffered no damages due to the delay.

b)	Prevail, because the short delay did not result in a material breach of the land sale contract.

c)	Prevail, because equity will not enforce a forfeiture.

d)	Not prevail, because Paul was late in tendering his performance under the contract.

Question 10 (1 point)

Bob and Sam entered into a contract of sale in which Sam agreed to purchase Bob's farm. Bob was getting on in years and did not want the responsibility of operating and maintaining the farm, but he did not want to move out of his home. Thus, the entire contract of sale read as follows: "Bob agrees to sell his farm to Sam and Sam agrees to buy Bob's farm for $25,000, except that Bob shall be entitled to retain the single family residence and two acres surrounding the residence." The contract was signed by Sam alone. Subsequently, Sam changed his mind and decided he did not want to purchase the property. If Bob brings an action for specific performance of the land sale contract, Bob will:

Question 10 options:

a)	Prevail, because Sam signed the contract and the description of the property is sufficient as written.

b)	Prevail, because Sam signed the contract and the court can admit extrinsic evidence to determine which two acres surrounding the home the parties intended to exclude.

c)	Not prevail, because Bob did not sign the contract and the description is void for vagueness.

d)	Not prevail, because no time was set for performance of the contract.