FREE WA Bar Multistate Bar Exam Questions and Answers

0%

If Axton’s heirs permit Valentino to mine, and the jurisdiction in which the land is located does not follow the Open Mines Doctrine,
what are Valentino’s rights?

Correct! Wrong!

There is a limit with respect to the amount of gold that life estate holder Valentino can mine. The exploitation must be reasonable.
The Open Mines Doctrine would restrict Valentino to mining the mines that were previously open before Valentino was left the life estate. Since the doctrine is not in effect, Valentino can mine any part of the property and is not limited to open mines.
Since the land was already exploited for gold, Valentino is not restricted to mining solely to pay for repair and maintenance of the property.

While Junior is out trapping in the Alaskan forest, his neighbor Franco trespasses onto Junior’s land and cuts down 500 of Junior’s corn stalks,
which Franco’s wife will use to make corn bread for the county fair.
Franco takes 250 of the stalks home and leaves the remaining stalks next to Junior’s barn. Franco plans to come back later at night to pick up the rest. Junior comes home and finds the 250 stalks and is baffled. He moves them onto his flat bed trailer and places a tarp over them.
When Franco returns to Junior’s property later that night, he learns that the stalks were moved from the area where he left them next to the barn. He spends a half hour looking for them and finally finds them on Junior’s trailer.
He takes off the tarp and brings the stalks home. Junior reviews his video surveillance system and observes Franco cutting down the stalks and his subsequent actions. He contacts the police, who charge Franco with larceny of 500 stalks. Franco objects to the charges.
Has Franco committed larceny?

Correct! Wrong!

Larceny cannot arise from taking fixtures detached from the property before it comes into possession of its owner.
However, since Franco took possession of the 250 stalks that junior made his own personal property, larceny of the those stalks was committed.

Axton and Valentino are lifelong friends. Axton has had a successful career mining gold from Tombstone, Axton’s 20 acre property, which also has a 4 bedroom home.
Valentino has always struggled to make a living. Feeling bad for Valentino, Axton leaves his 20 acre property to Valentino in his will for the life of Valentino and then to Axton’s heirs.
When Axton dies, his heirs seek to enjoin Valentino from using the property to mine gold so Valentino does not exploit the natural resources.
Will the heirs be able to succeed under the Doctrine of Waste?

Correct! Wrong!

Since a life estate was left to Valentino, and prior to the grant, the land was used in exploitation of the gold, Axton most likely wanted Valentino to mine for gold.

Herb is selling his home in the northwest to retire in the south. He has a large house filled with antique furniture, but he cannot take it all to his smaller home in the south.
The buyer of the home wants it vacant. Herb calls his nephew Joe and tells Joe that if he moves the furniture out of his home, he can have it.
Joe agrees, so he rents a truck and drives 300 miles to his uncle’s home and places the furniture into the truck. Before Joe departs, Uncle Herb decides that he wants to keep the furniture. Was a valid contract formed?


I. Yes. There was a bargained for exchange.
II. Yes. Herb made a valid unilateral contract offer.
III. No. Herb merely stated a condition for Joe to receive a gift.

Correct! Wrong!

When Joe agreed to come to Herb’s house, a bargained for exchange was agreed to. Herb was not merely giving Joe a gift, since he needed the furniture removed and Joe was required to rent a truck and travel a long distance to do so. Thus, Herb was bargaining for consideration, which was Joe’s agreement to come take the furniture out of Herb’s home.
Herb did not make a unilateral contract offer, which would require performance in order to accept. Joe did not need to completely perform the contract in order to accept.

Boris is walking on a County street. His doctor had recommended that he stay in bed. He turns ill and stumbles along the sidewalk. He comes to a sidewalk vault that is flush with the sidewalk, but not in a hazardous condition. Boris misses a step and trips over the vault.
He falls to the ground and breaks his left ankle and hip. He sues the owner of the vault for negligently maintaining it.
A settlement offer is made to Boris by the vault owner’s insurance company, but Boris rejects it and wants more.
At trial, the vault owner’s defense is that Boris was negligent and the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
The vault owner calls a man who saw the accident to the stand. The vault owner’s attorney wants to question the witness about what he observed.
The attorney asks the witness to describe how Boris looked.
The witness states that Boris looked old, ill and looked like he suffered from AIDS. Boris’ attorney objects.
Will the Court overrule the objection and allow the witness’ answer to stand?

Correct! Wrong!

The lay witness cannot testify as to a specific illness, but can provide his rationally based perception of the witness if it is helpful for a clear understanding of the testimony,
but cannot be based upon scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. Thus, the witness is permitted to give an overall impression of what was observed.

Related Post