NCBE Secure Site
Online Store
February 2012 MEE Questions
Evidence Question
Negotiable Instruments Question
Contracts Question
Torts Question
Decedents’ Estates Question
Agency and Partnership Question
Federal Civil Procedure/Conflict of Laws Question
Real Property Question
Corporations Question
Evidence Question
Six months ago, a woman was taken to a hospital following what she alleged was a sexual assault by a man during a fraternity party. The woman and the man were both seniors attending the college where the party was held.
At the time of the alleged assault, the hospital’s policy required that “in all cases of alleged or suspected sexual assault, non-emergency patients must be interviewed by a victim counselor before receiving medical treatment.” The woman was deemed a non-emergency patient and was told to wait in the waiting room to see a victim counselor. Three hours later, the victim counselor finally interviewed the woman. Thereafter, hospital personnel treated the woman for her injuries and sent her home.
There was no contact between the woman and the man until one week later, when the man sent the woman a text message on her cell phone. The text message said, “If you are upset about what happened, I can send you a check for $10,000 to help you forget the whole thing. I can also pay any medical expenses.” The woman did not respond.
Four months after the alleged assault, the woman contacted a lawyer and filed a civil action against the man and the hospital. She sought damages from the man for physical injuries resulting from the alleged assault. She also sought damages from the man for psychological injuries. According to the woman, these injuries were especially traumatic because of her belief in sexual abstinence before marriage and her lack of prior sexual experience. She sought damages from the hospital for exacerbating her injuries by negligently delaying her medical treatment.
The man filed an answer admitting that he had had sexual relations with the woman but asserting that they were consensual. In its answer, the hospital denied that its conduct had exacerbated the woman’s injuries.
Immediately after filing its answer, the hospital contacted the woman and offered to settle the claim for $5,000. The woman refused the hospital’s offer.
Five weeks after the woman filed her suit, the hospital changed its policy on dealing with sexual assault victims to provide that “in all cases of alleged or suspected sexual assault, immediate medical care will be provided to emergency and non-emergency patients.”
The woman’s suit against the man and the hospital is now set for trial. The following properly filed motions are before the court:
1. The hospital’s motion to exclude evidence of its new policy providing immediate medical treatment to emergency and non-emergency patients in all cases of alleged or suspected sexual assault.
2. The hospital’s motion to exclude evidence of its offer to settle with the woman.
3. The man’s motion to exclude evidence of
(a) his offer to pay the woman $10,000.
(b) his offer to pay the woman’s medical expenses.
4. The man’s motion to admit evidence that the woman had sexual relations with another student during her junior year.
The rules of evidence in this jurisdiction are identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
How should the court rule on each of these motions? Explain.
Negotiable Instruments Question
On September 1, Ned bought 1,000 liters of an industrial chemical from Steve for the price of $20 per liter, for a total of $20,000. Steve convinced Ned to buy the chemical by falsely telling Ned that Steve’s company would soon announce a new use for the chemical that would dramatically increase its market price. Because Ned did not have $20,000 in cash available, Steve accepted as payment a negotiable promissory note for $20,000. When Ned gave the note to Steve, it was signed on the front by Ned (as maker of the note) and indorsed on the back by Ned’s Uncle. Ned’s Uncle had indorsed the note as a favor to Ned to help induce Steve to take the note rather than insisting on payment in cash. The note stated that it was payable to the order of Steve and that it was payable on November 15.
On October 14, Steve, who was nervous not only about Ned’s ability to pay the amount of the note but also about the prospect that his representation to Ned might soon be exposed as false, sold the note to Cal for $19,000. Cal was an honest businessman who had never dealt with Steve before and was unaware of any of the facts surrounding the sale of the chemical by Steve to Ned. Steve told Cal that Ned was an excellent risk but that he (Steve) was unable to wait until November 15 for payment. To effectuate the sale, Steve indorsed the note by signing his name below Uncle’s indorsement and handed the note to Cal. Cal then handed Steve $19,000 in cash.
On October 15, Cal read an article in a local newspaper revealing that Steve was a con artist who had convinced several people, including Ned, to buy the chemical based on false claims of imminent increases in its market price.
On November 1, Cal used the note as partial payment for a new car he contracted to buy from Dealer, handing the note to Dealer without indorsing it. The contract to buy the car provided that the car would not be delivered to Cal until December 1.
On November 15, Dealer, who had not yet delivered the car to Cal, presented the note to Ned. Ned refused to pay and told Dealer that he had been induced to issue the note by Steve’s lie. Dealer did not sue Ned because Dealer did not believe that Ned would be able to satisfy a judgment against him. Dealer then gave timely notice to Uncle of Ned’s refusal to pay and sued Uncle on the note.
Will Dealer be successful in his suit against Uncle? Explain.
Contracts Question
GreenCar owns a fleet of 10 identical energy-efficient, electric “green” cars that it rents out for special events. GreenCar is the only company that has such specialized cars available for rental. GreenCar needed all 10 of its cars to fulfill a contract to provide 10 identical green cars to carry dignitaries in the local Earth Day parade on April 22, but each of the cars needed repair to be operable for the parade.
In order to have all 10 cars repaired in time for the parade, GreenCar entered into a contract with RepairCo pursuant to which RepairCo promised to “repair all 10 cars and return them to GreenCar no later than April 21 for $1,000 per car, $10,000 total.”
On April 21, RepairCo had completed repairs on only 6 of the 10 cars and returned those 6 cars to GreenCar. When RepairCo delivered the 6 cars, it informed GreenCar that the remaining 4 cars were not ready because RepairCo workers had walked off the job when salary negotiations broke down. RepairCo also explained to GreenCar that it planned to give its workers the raises they wanted, but it first wanted “to teach them a lesson.” RepairCo estimated that the remaining 4 GreenCar cars (all still inoperable) would be repaired by April 30.
GreenCar demanded that RepairCo return the remaining 4 unrepaired cars immediately. RepairCo did so. GreenCar refused to pay RepairCo for any repairs to the other 6 cars.
RepairCo sued GreenCar, alleging that GreenCar’s refusal to pay anything was a breach of contract.
Is RepairCo entitled to any payment from GreenCar, and if so, under what theory or theories? Explain.
Torts Question
Paul, age eight, and Paul’s mother, Mom, spent the morning at Funworld, an amusement park. Paul decided to ride the Ferris wheel. Mom, who was pregnant and tired, waited for him about 100 yards away.
After Paul entered a Ferris wheel car, the attendant, Employee, fastened the car’s safety bar. As the Ferris wheel began to turn, Paul could hear loud screams from a car carrying two boys, both age six. The boys were rocking their car vigorously. Employee also heard the two boys screaming and saw them rocking their car, but Employee took no action to stop them.
As Paul’s car began to descend from the top of the wheel, the two boys—whose car was right behind Paul’s car—shook the safety bar on their car hard enough that it unlatched. Both boys fell to the ground. One of the boys struck Paul on his way down.
After the two boys fell, Employee stopped the Ferris wheel and sounded an emergency alarm to notify Funworld security guards of the incident.
Mom did not see the accident, but she heard the alarm and rushed to the Ferris wheel. A crowd had already gathered, and Mom was unable to see Paul. A bystander told Mom that “a little boy has been killed.” Mom, panic-stricken, attempted to make her way through the crowd but could not.
Ten minutes later, the two boys who had fallen were taken to the hospital by an ambulance.
Paul and several of the other passengers begged to be taken off the Ferris wheel. Employee, however, refused without any explanation to restart the Ferris wheel. Thirty minutes later, a manager showed up and ordered Employee to restart the Ferris wheel and allow the passengers to exit.
Forty minutes after the accident, Mom was finally reunited with Paul. Both Paul and Mom went to the hospital, where Paul was treated for minor injuries caused by being hit when the two boys fell and where Mom suffered a miscarriage as a result of accident-related stress.
National accident records show that during the last 40 years, there has been only one other incident in which injuries have occurred as a result of passengers rocking a Ferris wheel car.
Paul and Mom have sued Funworld. Funworld has conceded that Employee was acting within the scope of his employment.
Based on the facts, could a jury properly find that
1. Funworld falsely imprisoned Paul? Explain.
2. Funworld was negligent because Employee failed to take action to stop the boys from rocking their car? Explain.
3. Mom is entitled to damages for her emotional distress and resulting miscarriage? Explain.
Decedents’ Estates Question
Five years ago, Testator asked her attorney to draft a will that would leave Testator’s entire estate to Nephew. One week later, the attorney mailed to Testator a document captioned “Last Will and Testament.” Although the document complied with Testator’s instructions, Testator did not sign it or have it witnessed.
Three years ago, Testator called her attorney and said, “I want my 400 shares of XYZ Corporation common stock to go to Aunt instead of Nephew.” Testator added, “I also want my home to go to Cousin. The house has five bedrooms, and Cousin has such a large family.” Testator told the attorney that her home was located at 340 Green Avenue, Springfield, State A.
Subsequently, the attorney sent Testator a document stating in its entirety:
I, Testator, being of sound and disposing mind, give my home, located at 340 Green Avenue, Springfield, State A, to Cousin and my 400 shares of XYZ Corporation common stock to Aunt. In all other respects, I republish my will.
Upon receipt of this document, Testator properly executed it.
Two years ago, Testator sold her five-bedroom house at 340 Green Avenue and used the proceeds to purchase a two-bedroom house located at 12 Elm Street in Springfield. The same year, Testator received 200 shares of XYZ common stock from XYZ Corporation in the form of a “dividend paid in stock.”
Three weeks ago, Testator died. Her probate estate consists of $200,000, her house at 12 Elm Street, and 600 shares of XYZ Corporation common stock, consisting of Testator’s original 400 shares and the 200-share stock dividend.
Testator is survived by Daughter, Daughter’s child (Grandson), Nephew, Cousin, and Aunt.
Fifteen years ago, Daughter was convicted of murdering her father, Testator’s husband. Testator and Daughter have had little contact since Daughter’s conviction, and Daughter remains in prison.
Testator is a resident of State A, and all of Testator’s assets are located in State A.
How should Testator’s probate assets be distributed? Explain.
Agency and Partnership Question
A man and a woman validly formed a partnership (“Garden Partnership”) to fix commercial gardening equipment. Several months after Garden Partnership began operations, it hired an employee who was a skilled mechanic.
The employee negligently repaired a piece of equipment for a customer. As a result, the customer was severely injured. The customer successfully sued Garden Partnership and recovered a judgment for $500,000, which has not been paid.
Shortly after entry of this judgment, the man and woman took the necessary steps to qualify Garden Partnership as a limited liability partnership, and they renamed it “Garden LLP.”
Shortly thereafter, the man and woman decided to expand the business. Because they needed more capital, they agreed to admit an investor as a partner. The investor contributed $50,000 and became a partner in Garden LLP.
1. Is Garden LLP liable for the $500,000 judgment against Garden Partnership? Explain.
2. Are the man and woman personally liable to the customer for the $500,000 judgment against Garden Partnership? Explain.
3. Is the investor personally liable to the customer for the $500,000 judgment against Garden Partnership? Explain.
Federal Civil Procedure/Conflict of Laws Question
The owner of a rare antique tapestry worth more than $1 million is a citizen of State A. The owner contacted a restorer, a citizen of State B, to restore the tapestry for $100,000. The owner and the restorer met in State A and negotiated a contract, but the final documents, prepared by the parties’ respective attorneys, were drafted and signed in State B. The contract has a forum-selection clause that specifies that any litigation arising out of or relating to the contract must be commenced in State B.
The restorer repaired the tapestry in State B and then informed the owner that the restoration was complete. The owner picked up the tapestry and paid the restorer $100,000. Subsequently, the owner discovered that the restorer had done hardly any work on the tapestry.
Despite the forum-selection clause in the contract, the owner filed suit against the restorer in a state court in State A, claiming breach of contract. The owner’s suit sought rescission of the contract and a return of the full contract price—$100,000.
The laws of State A and State B are different on two relevant points. First, State A courts do not enforce forum-selection clauses that would oust the jurisdiction of State A courts, regarding such clauses as against public policy; State B courts always enforce forum-selection clauses. Second, State A would allow contract rescission on these facts; State B would not allow rescission but would allow recovery of damages.
Under the conflict-of-laws rules of both State A and State B, a state court would apply its own law to resolve both the forum-selection clause issue and the rescission issue.
After the owner filed suit in State A court, the restorer removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of State A and then moved for a change of venue to the United States District Court for the District of State B, citing the contractual forum-selection clause in support of the motion. (There is only one United States District Court in each state.) The owner moved for remand on the ground that the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the action. Alternatively, the owner argued against the motion to transfer on the basis that the forum-selection clause was invalid under State A law.
1. Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain.
2. Should the change-of-venue motion, seeking transfer of the case to the federal court in State B, be granted? Explain.
3. Would a change of venue affect the law to be applied in resolving the rescission issue? Explain.
Real Property Question
Blackacre, which is immediately to the west of Whiteacre, is bounded on its west by a state highway. Whiteacre is bounded on the east by a county road. Both roads connect to a four-lane highway.
Twenty years ago, Tom, who then owned Blackacre, sold to Sue, who then owned Whiteacre, an easement over a private gravel road that crossed Blackacre. This easement allowed Sue significantly better access to the four-lane highway from Whiteacre than she had had using only the county road adjacent to Whiteacre. The easement was promptly and properly recorded.
After acquiring this easement, Sue discontinued using the county road to the east of Whiteacre and used the private gravel road crossing Blackacre to travel between Whiteacre and the four-lane highway. Sue used the private gravel road across Blackacre for that purpose almost every day for the next 18 years.
Fifteen years ago, Sue purchased Blackacre from Tom. The deed from Tom to Sue was promptly and properly recorded.
Two years ago, Sue sold Whiteacre to Dan. The deed from Sue to Dan, which was promptly and properly recorded, did not mention the private gravel road crossing Blackacre, although Dan was aware that Sue had used the road to more easily access the four-lane highway.
Following the purchase of Whiteacre, Dan obtained a construction loan from Bank secured by a mortgage on Whiteacre. This mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. The loan commitment, in the amount of $1,500,000, which was reflected in the mortgage, obligated Bank to loan Dan $300,000 immediately. It further obligated Bank to loan Dan an additional $500,000 in 180 days and $700,000 in 280 days.
After obtaining the second loan installment from Bank, Dan realized that he would need additional funds and borrowed $400,000 from Finance Company. This loan was also secured by a mortgage on Whiteacre. Upon Dan’s signing the note and mortgage, Finance Company immediately remitted the $400,000 to Dan and promptly and properly recorded its mortgage.
Thereafter, Bank advanced the final $700,000 loan installment to Dan.
Recently, Dan defaulted on the loans from both Bank and Finance Company. At the time of these defaults, Dan owed $1,500,000 to Bank and $400,000 to Finance Company.
At a proper foreclosure sale by Bank, Whiteacre was sold for $1,500,000 net of sale expenses.
1. Immediately before Sue sold Whiteacre to Dan, did Sue have an easement over Blackacre? Explain.
2. Immediately after Sue sold Whiteacre to Dan, did Dan have an easement over Blackacre? Explain.
3. How should the proceeds from the sale of Whiteacre be distributed between Bank and Finance Company? Explain.
Corporations Question
A corporation’s articles of incorporation state that the corporation shall have a seven-member board of directors. Neither the articles of incorporation nor the corporation’s bylaws contain any special provisions regarding the board of directors.
On March 1, the corporation’s president told its secretary to convene a special meeting of the board of directors. Accordingly, the secretary prepared a Notice of Special Meeting (Notice) and sent it by overnight mail to six of the seven directors. The secretary did not send the Notice to the seventh director — Claire — because Claire had recently moved and the corporation did not have a current mailing address for her.
The Notice stated only that a special meeting of the corporation’s board of directors would be held on March 31 at 10 a.m., at the corporate headquarters.
On March 2, each member of the board of directors except Claire received the Notice. Directors Alan and Barb, both of whom had vacation plans for March 31, made arrangements with the secretary to participate in the special meeting by telephone.
On March 30, Alan called Claire and informed her that a special meeting of the board of directors was going to be held on March 31.
On March 31, five members of the board of directors (including Claire but neither Alan nor Barb) gathered in the corporation’s conference room. Alan and Barb called in from their vacation homes. The five directors present in the conference room could hear both Alan and Barb. Alan and Barb could each hear the five directors in the conference room but could not hear each other.
After a lengthy discussion, the board of directors voted 4–3 to approve the corporation’s purchase of a major asset. Alan and Barb both voted to approve the purchase.
Claire, who voted against the purchase, is very upset and has brought an action seeking an injunction to prevent the purchase of the asset. Claire asserts that the board of directors did not properly approve the purchase of the asset.
Did the board of directors properly approve the purchase of the asset? Explain.