Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Client Correspondence
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Client CorrespondenceQuestion 1 of 20

Your client's adult son was arrested last night. The client called your office asking what rights her son has during questioning. You are drafting an email response. Which of the following statements is most accurate to include? Select one.

Your son must be read his Miranda rights immediately upon arrest, and any statements he makes before then will be inadmissible.
Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation. If your son is in custody and being questioned, he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney; statements obtained in violation of those rights may be subject to suppression. However, spontaneous statements not made in response to interrogation generally remain admissible.
Because your son is now in police custody, anything he says will be inadmissible without Miranda warnings, regardless of whether the police questioned him.
Miranda rights only apply at trial, not during police questioning.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Client Correspondence

Practice Client Correspondence in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Client Correspondence, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Your client's adult son was arrested last night. The client called your office asking what rights her son has during questioning. You are drafting an email response. Which of the following statements is most accurate to include? Select one.

  1. Your son must be read his Miranda rights immediately upon arrest, and any statements he makes before then will be inadmissible.
  2. Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation. If your son is in custody and being questioned, he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney; statements obtained in violation of those rights may be subject to suppression. However, spontaneous statements not made in response to interrogation generally remain admissible. (correct answer)
  3. Because your son is now in police custody, anything he says will be inadmissible without Miranda warnings, regardless of whether the police questioned him.
  4. Miranda rights only apply at trial, not during police questioning.
Explanation: B accurately states the Miranda rule: warnings are required before custodial interrogation (not arrest alone), and spontaneous statements not in response to questioning are generally admissible. A is wrong because Miranda is triggered by interrogation, not arrest itself. C overstates the protection by ignoring the spontaneous-statement exception. D misstates the doctrine entirely.

Question 2

Your client is a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Delaware. The corporation has been sued in California state court by a California resident, who alleges breach of contract and seeks $200,000 in damages. The client was served yesterday. Which of the following is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. Because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the case is removable to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The notice of removal generally must be filed within 30 days of service, so I recommend that we move promptly to preserve this option. (correct answer)
  2. Because the dispute involves a contract rather than a federal statute, removal is not available.
  3. You can remove the case to federal court at any time during the pendency of the suit, so there is no immediate urgency.
  4. Removal is automatic once you file an answer in the state court action.
Explanation: A accurately identifies diversity jurisdiction (a corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and its principal place of business; here, Delaware versus California), the amount-in-controversy threshold, and the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and it appropriately recommends prompt action. B and D misstate removal law. C ignores the strict 30-day clock and creates substantial risk of waiver.

Question 3

Your client owns a small restaurant. A customer recently posted a one-star online review claiming that the restaurant served rotten food and was infested with rats. Your client says these factual statements are false. Your client wants to sue the customer for defamation. Which of the following statements is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. Because online reviews are always actionable when the business owner believes them to be false, you should sue immediately.
  2. A defamation claim requires a false statement of fact (not opinion), publication to a third party, fault, and (in most cases) damages. The review's references to rotten food and rat infestation appear to be assertions of fact rather than opinion, but the overall context, the customer's basis for the claims, and any applicable privileges must be evaluated. I would also recommend weighing the practical risk that litigation may amplify the negative review's reach. Let's meet to discuss before deciding whether to proceed. (correct answer)
  3. You cannot sue because all online reviews are constitutionally protected opinion.
  4. Because the review caused you emotional distress, you have a strong defamation claim regardless of whether the statements are true or false.
Explanation: B accurately states the elements of defamation, distinguishes fact from opinion, flags context and privileges, raises the practical "Streisand effect" risk that an experienced lawyer should counsel about, and proposes a meeting before action. A overstates the strength of the claim. C oversimplifies (statements presented as fact are not automatically opinion). D ignores fundamental defamation requirements (truth is a complete defense).

Question 4

Your client is bringing a medical malpractice claim against a surgeon who allegedly performed a routine surgery negligently. The client wants to avoid the expense of retaining an expert witness. Which of the following is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. Most jurisdictions require expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care in medical malpractice cases, except in narrow circumstances where the alleged negligence is so obvious that a layperson could recognize it (for example, a foreign object left inside a patient). Without an expert, your case is likely to be dismissed at the summary-judgment stage. I strongly recommend retaining a qualified expert and would like to discuss potential candidates. (correct answer)
  2. Expert testimony is never required in medical malpractice cases.
  3. You can establish malpractice through your own testimony alone, without any expert support.
  4. The court will appoint an expert on your behalf at no cost to you.
Explanation: A correctly states the general expert requirement in medical malpractice cases, the narrow common-knowledge exception, the practical consequence of going forward without an expert (summary judgment), and a recommended next step. B, C, and D each misstate the law in ways that would lead the client to make a decision detrimental to her case.

Question 5

You represent a client who recently purchased a residential property. The client emailed you about a neighbor who has been parking a recreational vehicle on a strip of land just inside the client's property line for what the client estimates to be the past 12 years. The neighbor now claims a right to continue using the strip. Your jurisdiction has a 10-year statutory period for adverse possession. Which of the following is most appropriate to include in your initial advice letter? Select one.

  1. Because the neighbor has used the strip for more than ten years, the neighbor now owns it, and you have no recourse.
  2. Although the neighbor has used the strip for more than ten years, more facts are needed about the nature of the use — particularly whether it has been hostile, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous — before I can assess whether the neighbor has acquired title by adverse possession. I will need to ask you several questions about the history of the property and the neighbor's use before I can advise you on next steps. (correct answer)
  3. The neighbor's use is irrelevant because you recently purchased the property; the statutory clock restarts upon transfer of title.
  4. You should immediately move the recreational vehicle yourself in order to interrupt the neighbor's continuous possession before contacting the neighbor or the local authorities.
Explanation: B is best because adverse possession requires not only the statutory period but also possession that is hostile, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous. The lawyer should communicate the need for additional facts rather than reaching a premature conclusion. A overstates certainty without those elements being established. C is incorrect — the running of the adverse-possession period is generally not interrupted by a transfer of title to a new owner. D recommends improper self-help that could expose the client to liability or escalate the dispute.

Question 6

Your client, a manufacturer, sent a written purchase order to a supplier for 1,000 industrial widgets at $50 per unit. The supplier responded with a written acknowledgment that contained the same price and quantity but added a clause requiring all disputes to be arbitrated in the supplier's home state. Your client has asked whether it is bound to the arbitration provision. Which of the following statements is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. Because both parties are merchants, a contract was formed despite the differing terms; however, an out-of-state arbitration clause likely constitutes a material alteration that does not become part of the agreement under UCC § 2-207. (correct answer)
  2. Because the supplier's acknowledgment contained different terms, no contract was formed under the mirror image rule, and you have no obligations to the supplier.
  3. Because you accepted the goods after receiving the acknowledgment, you are deemed to have agreed to all of the supplier's additional terms, including the arbitration clause.
  4. Because the supplier's response is technically a counteroffer, the arbitration clause becomes binding unless you object in writing within ten days.
Explanation: Under UCC § 2-207(1)–(2), a definite expression of acceptance forms a contract even if it states additional terms; between merchants, additional terms become part of the contract unless they materially alter it. An arbitration clause requiring out-of-state arbitration is widely treated as a material alteration. B misapplies the common law mirror image rule, which UCC § 2-207 displaces. C is wrong because acceptance of goods does not automatically incorporate additional terms under § 2-207. D states neither the common law nor the UCC rule correctly.

Question 7

Your client was injured in a slip-and-fall at a grocery store 22 months ago. The applicable statute of limitations is two years. The client just contacted you to discuss filing suit. You are drafting an email response to the client. Which of the following best conveys the urgency and an appropriate next step? Select one.

  1. We have ample time before the statute of limitations runs, so we can take our time investigating the facts before deciding whether to file.
  2. The two-year statute of limitations for your claim will expire in approximately two months. To preserve your right to sue, I recommend that we move quickly to investigate and prepare a complaint. Please confirm by [date] whether you would like me to represent you in this matter. (correct answer)
  3. The statute of limitations has expired, so you no longer have a viable claim.
  4. Because you waited so long to contact me, I cannot assist you with this matter.
Explanation: B fulfills the lawyer's duties of communication (MRPC 1.4) and diligence (MRPC 1.3): it accurately states the deadline, explains the consequence of delay, recommends a course of action, and seeks the client's informed decision. A understates the urgency and risks malpractice. C misstates the facts (approximately two months remain). D fails to communicate the actual posture and prematurely declines without basis.

Question 8

Your client, a private employer, wants to terminate an at-will employee who has been posting controversial political opinions on personal social media accounts that have nothing to do with the workplace. The client has asked whether terminating the employee would create First Amendment liability. Which of the following statements is most accurate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. The First Amendment prohibits all employers from terminating employees based on protected speech, so termination would expose you to constitutional liability.
  2. Because the employee's posts address matters of public concern, the First Amendment protects the employee from termination.
  3. The First Amendment generally restricts only government action, so as a private employer, you are not bound by it. However, certain state laws and any applicable contractual provisions may limit your discretion, and I recommend we evaluate those before you proceed. (correct answer)
  4. Because the speech occurred outside the workplace, the First Amendment automatically protects it from any adverse employment action.
Explanation: C correctly identifies the state-action requirement of the First Amendment (private employers are generally not bound) and prudently flags other potential sources of restriction (state off-duty conduct statutes, employment contracts, collective bargaining agreements), enabling the client to make an informed decision. A, B, and D incorrectly suggest the First Amendment binds private employers.

Question 9

You represent the plaintiff in a wrongful-death civil suit. A key piece of your case relies on testimony from a witness who would describe an out-of-court statement made by the deceased defendant several days before the events at issue, in which the defendant said, I'm going to teach [the plaintiff's spouse] a lesson he won't forget. Your client has asked you to assess the strength of the case. Which of the following best advises the client? Select one.

  1. The witness's testimony will be admitted because statements by deceased persons are always admissible against their estates.
  2. The witness's testimony is inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used.
  3. The statement may be admissible under the hearsay exception for a then-existing state of mind (such as intent), which is often used to show that the declarant later acted in accordance with that intent. Admissibility will depend on how the statement is offered and the court's ruling, and I will need to investigate further before giving you a confident assessment. (correct answer)
  4. Because the defendant is deceased, the rules of evidence do not apply to statements made by the defendant.
Explanation: C correctly identifies FRE 803(3) (state-of-mind exception), often used per Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon to show that the declarant later acted in conformity with that intent, and appropriately conveys uncertainty pending further analysis. A and D misstate evidence law. B overstates the exclusion by ignoring potentially applicable exceptions.

Question 10

Your client leases retail space under a five-year commercial lease. The lease provides: Tenant may not assign or sublet the premises without Landlord's consent. Your client wants to sublet a portion of the space to a coffee vendor whose business will not interfere with the client's operations. The landlord refused consent without explanation. Which of the following statements is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. The lease prohibits subletting under any circumstances, so you must comply with the landlord's refusal.
  2. Because the lease requires landlord consent, the landlord may refuse for any reason or no reason, and you have no recourse.
  3. Although your lease requires consent, many jurisdictions now imply a duty that the landlord act reasonably in withholding consent, particularly in commercial leases. Whether the landlord's refusal is enforceable will depend on the controlling law in this jurisdiction and on the landlord's reasons. I will research the applicable rule and follow up before recommending a course of action. (correct answer)
  4. You may sublet without the landlord's consent because the law prohibits restrictions on subletting.
Explanation: C accurately reflects the modern (and many jurisdictions') trend toward imposing a reasonableness requirement on consent clauses in commercial leases, while flagging the need for jurisdiction-specific research. A overstates the lease's prohibition (the lease requires consent, not absolute prohibition). B reflects the older traditional rule without acknowledging the modern trend. D is wrong as a matter of law.

Question 11

Your client was arrested after police entered her home without a warrant. The officers entered after a neighbor called to report a suspicious smell coming from the home. The officers entered without knocking and discovered evidence of drug manufacturing. The client wants to know about the chances of suppressing the evidence. Which of the following best advises the client? Select one.

  1. The evidence will be suppressed because the police did not have a warrant.
  2. The evidence will be admitted because the smell gave the officers probable cause to enter.
  3. Whether the evidence is suppressed will depend on whether an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Possible exceptions here include exigent circumstances and consent, but the manner of entry (no knock-and-announce) and the basis for entry both raise significant concerns. I need additional facts about what the officers said, what they observed, and what your client said before I can give you a confident assessment. (correct answer)
  4. Because the search was of your home, suppression is automatic regardless of the circumstances.
Explanation: C correctly identifies that warrantless home entries are presumptively unreasonable but may be justified by recognized exceptions (exigent circumstances, consent, etc.), flags the knock-and-announce concern, and signals the need for additional facts before giving the client an assessment. A and D overstate the protection. B overstates the government's position; smell may contribute to probable cause but does not by itself justify warrantless entry of a home absent an exception.

Question 12

Your client is being investigated for federal wire fraud allegedly committed during the period in which she was married to her now ex-husband. The two communicated extensively by email about the alleged scheme during the marriage. The government has subpoenaed those emails. The client wants to know whether the marital communications privilege protects them. Which of the following statements is most accurate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. All communications between spouses are absolutely privileged forever, so the emails are protected.
  2. Because you are now divorced, the privilege no longer applies, and the emails are not protected.
  3. The marital communications privilege generally protects confidential communications made during the marriage and survives the marriage's end. However, courts widely recognize an exception for communications related to ongoing or future joint criminal activity. We will need to review the emails to assess whether the privilege is likely to apply. (correct answer)
  4. Because the emails are written rather than oral, no marital privilege applies to them.
Explanation: C accurately states the marital communications privilege: it covers confidential communications made during the marriage, survives divorce, but is subject to a widely recognized exception for joint criminal activity (e.g., United States v. Estes-style cases). A overstates the privilege. B incorrectly states that the privilege ends with divorce. D wrongly suggests writings are excluded — the privilege applies regardless of medium.

Question 13

Your client has been charged with a felony. The prosecutor has offered a plea deal that would result in a one-year sentence. If your client goes to trial and is convicted, the maximum sentence is ten years. Based on your assessment, you believe there is approximately a 60% chance of conviction at trial. The client has asked for your advice about whether to take the plea. Which of the following best balances candor with respect for the client's authority over the decision in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. I strongly recommend that you take the plea deal because going to trial is too risky.
  2. You should take the plea — any chance of a longer sentence is unacceptable, and that is the only reasonable choice.
  3. I cannot give you advice about whether to take the plea; you must decide on your own.
  4. Based on my analysis of the evidence, I currently estimate roughly a 60% chance of conviction if we proceed to trial. The plea offer of one year compares to a possible sentence of up to ten years if you are convicted. The decision whether to accept the plea or proceed to trial is yours to make, and I want to be sure you have all the information you need. I am happy to meet to discuss the risks, the benefits, and any alternatives in more detail before you decide. (correct answer)
Explanation: D respects the client's authority over the decision whether to plead (MRPC 1.2(a) reserves that decision to the client), provides the lawyer's professional assessment as required by MRPC 1.4(b) so the client can make an informed decision, and offers further consultation. A and B inappropriately direct the client's decision. C abdicates the lawyer's duty to advise.

Question 14

Your client owns 100 shares of a publicly held corporation. She believes the corporation's officers entered into a contract that benefited themselves at the corporation's expense and caused the corporation to lose value. She wants to sue the officers personally to recover the loss to her shares. Which of the following is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. You can sue the officers directly to recover your individual losses as a shareholder.
  2. The harm you describe — officers causing loss to the corporation — is generally a corporate injury that must be vindicated through a derivative action on behalf of the corporation, rather than through an individual suit. Bringing a derivative action typically requires you to make a demand on the board (or plead with particularity that demand would be futile), and any recovery generally goes to the corporation rather than to you personally. Before proceeding, I'd like to discuss whether a derivative action aligns with your goals. (correct answer)
  3. Because you only own 100 shares, you do not have standing to bring any suit related to officer misconduct.
  4. Officers can never be held personally liable to either the corporation or its shareholders.
Explanation: B correctly distinguishes direct from derivative claims, accurately describes the demand requirement (or demand-futility pleading), notes that recovery flows to the corporation, and probes the client's actual objectives — important because some clients want personal recovery and may not want to fund a derivative suit. A confuses direct and derivative claims. C is incorrect (any shareholder generally has standing to bring a derivative action subject to the contemporaneous-ownership rule). D is incorrect (officers can be liable for breach of fiduciary duty).

Question 15

Your client signed a commercial services contract for $20,000 that includes a clause requiring payment of $50,000 in damages if the client breaches. The client recently breached, and the other party is demanding the full $50,000. The client wants to know whether she must pay. Which of the following is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. A liquidated-damages clause is enforceable only if (i) actual damages from breach were difficult to estimate at the time of contracting, and (ii) the stipulated amount is a reasonable forecast of likely damages. A clause that operates as a penalty — for example, one calling for damages 2.5 times the contract price — may be unenforceable as a penalty. We should investigate the parties' reasoning behind the $50,000 figure at the time of contracting and the actual damages caused by the breach before assessing your exposure. (correct answer)
  2. Because you signed the contract, you owe the $50,000 regardless of how it compares to actual damages.
  3. Liquidated-damages clauses are always unenforceable as penalties under modern contract law.
  4. Because the breach is your fault, you cannot challenge the amount the contract specifies as damages.
Explanation: A accurately states the test for enforceability of liquidated-damages clauses (Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356; UCC § 2-718), flags the disproportionate ratio (2.5x contract price) that is suggestive of an unenforceable penalty, and proposes an investigation of both prospective (time of contracting) and retrospective (actual damages) considerations. B and D oversimplify and waive a viable defense. C overstates the doctrine; properly drafted LD clauses are routinely enforced.

Question 16

Your client is a director of a corporation. The board is considering whether to approve a contract between the corporation and another company that is wholly owned by your client. Your client believes the contract is on terms fair to the corporation and wants to vote in favor. The client has asked whether she can do so. Which of the following statements is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. You may not vote on or otherwise participate in any contract between the corporation and a company you own, regardless of disclosure.
  2. Your ownership of the counterparty creates a director conflict of interest. Such transactions are not automatically voidable; under the standard safe-harbor rules they may be sustained if (i) the material facts of your interest are disclosed and the contract is approved by disinterested directors or shareholders, or (ii) the contract is shown to be entirely fair to the corporation. To minimize risk, I recommend full disclosure of your interest and that the disinterested directors deliberate and vote without your participation. (correct answer)
  3. Your duty of loyalty as a director categorically prohibits any contract between the corporation and an entity you own.
  4. So long as you personally believe the contract is fair, no further action is necessary, and you may vote in favor.
Explanation: B accurately reflects the standard "interested director transaction" safe harbor (e.g., MBCA § 8.61 and DGCL § 144) and provides actionable best-practice guidance: disclose, abstain, and have disinterested directors approve. A and C overstate the prohibition; conflict-of-interest transactions can be approved through proper procedures. D ignores the disclosure and abstention requirements and risks invalidation of the contract and personal liability.

Question 17

Your client, a small business owner, orally agreed to purchase 500 specialty (non-custom) boxes from a supplier at $20 per box, for a total of $10,000. Two days later, the supplier sent your client a signed written confirmation of the agreement. Your client did not respond. The supplier has now manufactured the boxes and is demanding payment. The client wants advice on whether she is bound. Which of the following statements is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. Because the contract is for more than $500, it is unenforceable under the UCC statute of frauds, regardless of the written confirmation.
  2. Because both you and the supplier are merchants and you did not object to the supplier's signed written confirmation within ten days, the confirmation likely satisfies the statute of frauds against you under UCC § 2-201(2), and the contract is enforceable. (correct answer)
  3. Because you did not personally sign anything, the contract is unenforceable.
  4. The contract is enforceable only if the goods have already been delivered to and accepted by you.
Explanation: UCC § 2-201(2) provides that, between merchants, a writing in confirmation of the contract that is sufficient against the sender also satisfies the statute of frauds against the recipient unless the recipient objects in writing within 10 days. B accurately conveys this rule and the consequence to the client. A ignores the merchant-confirmation exception. C is incorrect because the merchant exception does not require the recipient's signature. D states only one alternative basis for enforcement and ignores the controlling rule on these facts.

Question 18

Your client was injured when a power tool he had recently purchased malfunctioned during normal use. The tool was manufactured by Company A and sold by retailer B. The client has asked whom he can sue. Which of the following is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. You can only sue the manufacturer because retailers are not subject to products liability claims.
  2. Under products liability law, both the manufacturer and any commercial retailer in the chain of distribution may be subject to liability, depending on the type of defect alleged and the law of the jurisdiction. Possible theories include strict liability, negligence, and breach of express or implied warranty. I will need more facts about the malfunction and your purchase before I can identify the strongest claims. (correct answer)
  3. You can only sue the retailer because that is who you purchased the tool from.
  4. Products liability claims require proof that the manufacturer intentionally caused the defect.
Explanation: B accurately conveys that strict products liability extends to commercial sellers in the distribution chain (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability), identifies the principal theories of recovery, and signals the need for additional fact development. A and C are factually incorrect. D mischaracterizes strict liability, which does not require intent.

Question 19

Your client was injured when the defendant ran a red light and struck the client's car. Your investigation reveals that your client was traveling 10 mph over the speed limit at the time of the collision. The jurisdiction follows pure comparative negligence. The defendant's insurer has offered $80,000 to settle a claim that you estimate is worth $100,000 if the client is found not at fault. Which of the following statements best balances candor and respect for the client's authority over the decision in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. I recommend that you accept the offer because we are likely to lose at trial in light of your speeding.
  2. I recommend that you reject the offer because the defendant clearly caused the accident by running a red light.
  3. Because you were partially at fault, your recovery may be reduced in proportion to your share of fault under pure comparative negligence. A jury could therefore award less than $100,000 even if it finds the defendant primarily responsible. You should weigh that risk against the certainty of $80,000 before deciding; the decision is yours, and I am happy to discuss further. (correct answer)
  4. Because you were speeding, you are barred from recovery under contributory negligence and should accept any settlement offered.
Explanation: C correctly explains pure comparative negligence (recovery reduced in proportion to fault), accurately frames the trade-off between settlement certainty and trial risk, and respects the client's authority to decide whether to settle (MRPC 1.2(a) and 1.4(b)). A overstates the likelihood of loss and improperly directs the client's decision. B understates the comparative-fault risk. D misstates the law (the jurisdiction follows pure comparative, not contributory, negligence).

Question 20

Your client signed a contract to purchase a parcel of land based in part on the seller's representative's statement, and the parties' shared belief, that the land contained a particular mineral deposit. Geological tests now show that the deposit was never present. The client wants to know whether she can rescind the contract. Which of the following statements is most appropriate to include in your advice letter? Select one.

  1. Because both parties were mistaken, you cannot rescind: the doctrine of mistake applies only to unilateral mistakes.
  2. Because you signed the contract, you are bound regardless of any mistake.
  3. A mutual mistake about a basic assumption of the contract that materially affects the agreed exchange may support rescission, provided you did not bear the risk of the mistake. I will need additional facts about how the contract allocates risk and what investigation, if any, you undertook before signing, before I can give you a more confident assessment. (correct answer)
  4. Mistake claims always succeed when both parties were wrong about a basic fact about the property.
Explanation: C tracks Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152 (mutual mistake about a basic assumption that materially affects the exchange may render the contract voidable, unless the adversely affected party bore the risk under § 154), appropriately flags the risk-allocation issue, and signals further fact development. A misstates the doctrine. B oversimplifies. D overstates the doctrine and ignores the risk-bearing analysis.