blr202 test 5B latest 2016 july

Question 1

Evidence 5ATF:Daisy says she paid Devon $100 and he agreed she could use his parking space for a month. Devon says he never said that and Daisy never gave him any money. Daisy’s proof that she gave Devon $100 in exchange for his agreement to let her use the parking space is her testimony.

True

False

1 points

Question 2

Wk05.Legal Writing 17 .Legal arguments have labels but briefs do not.

True

False

1 points

Question 3

Wk05.Legal Writing 19. When I write about two different issues/ topics I can jump back and forth between the different issues and topics in my paper

True

False

1 points

Question 4

Wk05.Legal Writing 30. The word “so” sounds just as professional as the word “therefore”.

True

False

1 points

Question 5

Wk05. LEGAL ISSUE ONLY 6. Dora works for Be Brave, LLC. Her immediate supervisor, Norm, was walking by her office and heard her on the phone in what was obviously a personal conversation. Fifteen minutes later Norm walked by Dora’s office and she was still on the phone with a personal call. In another fifteen minutes he again walked by and she was still on the personal call. Although the company allows short personal calls, Dora was on the phone for over a half hour.

Norm wants to fire Dora. Dora claims she cannot be fired for making personal calls.

What is the legal issue raised?

a.

None.

b.

Was this a personal call?

c.

Was Dora fired?

d.

Can an employee legally be fired for making personal calls?

1 points

Question 6

Wk05. Government. QUESTIONS: US Congress has passed some law that says “X”. It is irrelevant for this question what the law says. Which of the following statements is true?

a.

All laws passed by US Congress are subject to review in the courts to make sure they do not exceed the power given to Congress to pass laws.

b.

All laws passed by US Congress are legal.

c.

All laws passed by US Congress are valid.

d.

Only laws that violate due process, equal protection or the Commerce Clause are subject to review in the courts.

1 points

Question 7

Gilbert Church owned Church Farms, Inc. Church Farms, Inc. advertised its stallion, Imperial Guard, for breeding rights at $50,000, directing all inquiries to "Herb Bagley, Manager to arrange for services." Vern Lundberg answered the ad and entered into a contract for breeding rights, signed by Bagley on behalf of the corporation. However, shortly thereafter Gilbert moved Imperial Guard and did not honor the contract with Vern.

Which of the following is correct?

a.

Church Farms, Inc. has not breached its contract with Lundberg.

b.

No contract exists between the corporation and Lundberg.

c.

Church Farms, Inc. has breached its contract with Lundberg.

d.

A contract exists between Bagley and Lundberg.

1 points

Question 8

On 1/2/200X Bella, a popular actress, signed a two-year contract with Hollywood Agency. This contract obligated Hollywood Agency to represent and promote Bella in all business and professional matters, including the arrangement of parts in movies and television. For those services, Bella paid Hollywood Agency 10% of her income. On 3/1/200X, Hollywood Agency entered into a contract with MGM for a part for Bella in an upcoming movie.

Hollywood Agency is the ________________.

a.

agent

b.

principal

c.

3rd party

d.

principle

1 points

Question 9

On 1/2/200X Bella, a popular actress, signed a two-year contract with Hollywood Agency. This contract obligated Hollywood Agency to represent and promote Bella in all business and professional matters, including the arrangement of acting parts. For those services, Bella paid Hollywood Agency 10% of her income. On 3/1/200X, Hollywood Agency entered into a contract with MGM for a part for Bella in an upcoming movie.

Bella refused to play the part. Which of the following is true?

a.

Since Bella did not approve the contract, it is not binding on her.

b.

Bella has no contract with MGM.

c.

Bella has breached her contract with MGM.

d.

Hollywood Agency has breached its contract with MGM.

1 points

Question 10

The Smiths listed their condo for sale with Merril, who thus became an agent for the Smiths. $20,000 was needed for the down payment however.

Warren wanted to buy the condo but did not have the down payment of $20,000, he only had $11,000. Merril, Warren, and Bess (Merril’s daughter) agreed to the following: Merril would pay $10,000 of the down payment and Warren would pay $10,000. Warren would pay Bes $1000 for her trouble. The property would be “sold” to Bes but actually Warren would make all the payments and live there. Warren would repay Merril the $10,000 after which time Bess would deed the property over to Warren. Emails and letters exist to show the existence of this agreement.

Warren moved into the condo, made the payments, and repaid Merril $10,000. However, Bess then evicted Warren (translation: kicked him out of the condo), saying the condo belonged to her.

Which of the following is true?

a.

Bess owes no duty to Warren and the condo belongs to her.

b.

The condo reverts to the original owner since fraud was involved.

c.

The condo belongs 1/2 to Warren and 1/2 to Bess.

d.

The condo belongs to Warren, Bess has violated good faith.

1 points

Question 11

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.First.

Gorco Construction Company v. Ed Stein, 256 Minn. 476, 99 N.W.2d 69 (1959) (Supreme Court of Minnesota) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites removed.)

The issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the trial court judge erred in instructing the jury that as a matter of law a wife is an agent of a husband.

mc015-1.jpg

Mr. Stein placed an order with Gorco Construction Company’s (Gorco Construction) sales representative for the construction of two garages at a total cost of $ 38,000. The Gorco employee who accepted the order said, ““We will review it and get back to you and I can’t authorize this contract at this moment.”

The contract contained a clause that said, in the event Mr. Stein canceled the order he would pay 15% of the value of the order as “liquidated damages”. (Note. You can assume such a clause is legal and no issues here related to the validity of this clause.)

A few days later a Gorco agent spoke to Mrs. Stein an informed her Gorco Construction had accepted the order. She said, “Fine”.

However, unknown to either Gorco Construction or Mrs. Stein, Mr. Stein had entered into a contract with another company. When Mr. Stein called Gorco Construction to cancel his order, a Gorco representative said something to the effect, “We have a contract and you have to pay us the 15% damages”. Gorco sued Mr. Stein for breach of contract. Mr. Stein said he had no contract with Gorco because he had revoked the offer prior to acceptance. Under common law contract law an offer can be revoked at

The trial judge told the jury that by law, a wife is the agent of the husband. Therefore, when Mrs. Stein said, “Fine” the contract was formed and the damage clause triggered.

However, we reverse the trial judge’s statement of the law. A wife is not, as a matter of law, is the agent of her husband. Neither is the husband automatically the agent of the wife. No contract was formed between Mr. Stein and Gorco and he does not owe them any damages because he revoked his offer prior to acceptance.

THIS IS THE FIRST QUESTION. The trial judge made a mistake about what the law says. Which statement below summarized the incorrect statement of law made by the trial judge?

a.

Gorco Construction cannot collect damages from Mr. Stein.

b.

A wife is automatically the agent of the husband.

c.

A wife is not automatically the agent of the husband.

d.

No contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1 points

Question 12

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. The Minnesota state supreme court says the law that applies to this scenario is “offers can be revoked at any time prior to acceptance”.

a.

True

b.

False

1 points (Extra Credit)

Question 13

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. The state supreme court says the law regarding agents is really.

a.

Gorco Construction cannot collect damages from Mr. Stein.

b.

No contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant.

c.

A wife is automatically the agent of the husband.

d.

A wife is not automatically the agent of the husband.

1 points

Question 14

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. If the wife were an agent of the husband, then the contract was formed because ___________.

a.

a writing existed.

b.

consideration existed.

c.

there was an acceptance.

d.

there was an offer.

1 points

Question 15

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. No one disagreed that the order placed by Stein was _____________.

a.

consideration

b.

contract

c.

an acceptance

d.

an offer

1 points

Question 16

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. Which of the following is the legal issue raised in the case?

a.

Does a contract exist between Mr. Stein and Gorco?

b.

Is consideration necessary to form a contract?

c.

Is an offer needed to form a contract?

d.

Is a wife automatically an automatically agent of her husband?

1 points

Question 17

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. What is the answer to the legal issue raised in the case?

a.

A spouse is not automatically an agent of her husband.

b.

No contract exists between Gorco and Mr. Stein.

c.

A contract exists between Gorco and Mr. Stein.

d.

An offer, acceptance, and consideration are needed to form a contract.

1 points

Question 18

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. What is the answer to the value issue raised in the case?

a.

A contract exists between Gorco and Mr. Stein.

b.

An offer, acceptance, and consideration are needed to form a contract.

c.

No contract exists between Gorco and Mr. Stein.

d.

A spouse is not automatically an agent of her husband.

1 points

Question 19

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. Could a wife be an agent for her husband?

a.

Yes, if the husband has given her power to enter into contracts for him.

b.

No, the case tells us a wife cannot be an agent for a husband.

1 points

Question 20

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. This case is filed in the Minnesota state court system. Assume another case with the exact same facts but involving different people were filed in a Nevada court. Must the Nevada court follow this case?

a.

No, because this is a matter of Minnesota constitutional law.

b.

Yes, because this case involves a US Constitutional law issue.

c.

Yes, this is a matter of federal law.

d.

No, this is a matter of state law and the Nevada court could hold that a spouse is automatically the agent of the other spouse.

1 points

Question 21

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. True or false. If this case involved federal law, the reader would be told because the default is always state law.

a.

False

b.

True

1 points

Question 22

Wk05.Agency.Gorco.Same passage as above. If the parties wanted to appeal further, could the US. Supreme Court hear this matter?

a.

No, this is a matter of state law and the US Supreme Court cannot make state law.

b.

Yes, any case can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

c.

We cannot tell from the information given.

d.

Yes because this case involves a US Constitutional law issue and therefore the US Supreme Court can hear it.

1 points

Question 23

Elsa participates in a Title VII investigation at the firm where she works. As a result, Elsa's employer demotes her. Elsa can file a

a.

constructive discharge claim.

b.

retaliation claim.

c.

harassment complaint.

d.

disparate-impact discrimination claim.

1 points

Question 24

Fruits & Vegetables, Inc., employs hundreds of seasonal and permanent workers, both skilled and unskilled, in seven states. Fruits & Vegetables can hire illegal immigrants

a.

only if the immigrants file special forms.

b.

only if the employer files a special form.

c.

if either the employer or the immigrants file special forms.

d.

under no circumstances.

1 points

Question 25

Disparate-impact discrimination occurs when a protected class of individuals is adversely affected by an employer's practices, even though they do not appear to be discriminatory.

True

False

1 points

Question 26

Olivia applies for a job with Petro Company. Petro does not hire Olivia because of her ethnicity, or national origin. This is

a.

disparate-treatment discrimination.

b.

not discrimination.

c.

disparate-impact discrimination.

d.

reverse discrimination.

1 points

Question 27

Origami Paper Products Corporation meets all of the requirements to be subject to the federal employment discrimination laws. These laws restrict the ability of employers to discriminate against workers on the basis of

a.

gender.

b.

experience.

c.

skill.

d.

intelligence.

1 points

Question 28

Melanie files an employment discrimination suit against Natural Gas Industries Corp. under Title VII on a disparate-impact theory. To succeed, Melanie must show that a protected group of people are adversely affected by any of the following except the employer's

a.

tests.

b.

practices.

c.

seniority system.

d.

procedures.

1 points

Question 29

Under the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can end an employment relationship at any time.

True

False

1 points

Question 30

Hu, Ivan, and Juana apply to work for King Meatpacking Company. These individuals' identities and eligibility to work must be verified by

a.

the individuals.

b.

the employer.

c.

the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

d.

the individuals' countries of origin.

1 points

Question 31

A promise that an employer makes in an employee handbook regarding discharge will not be considered part of an implied contract.

True

False

1 points

Question 32

A plaintiff who proves unlawful discrimination may be awarded reinstatement and back pay, but not retroactive promotions.

True

False

1 points

Question 33

Thelma is an employee at Foreign Food Mart. Thelma is called for jury duty and as a result cannot work her scheduled shift at Foreign Food Mart. Foreign Food Mart fires Thelma. This is a violation of

a.

an exception based on public policy.

b.

an example of the doctrine.

c.

an exception based on contract theory.

d.

an exception based on tort theory.