Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Dispositive Fact Analysis

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Dispositive Fact AnalysisQuestion 1 of 20

You are an attorney representing an out-of-state winery that wishes to challenge a new state law. The law permits state-licensed liquor stores to sell wine but prohibits them from accepting deliveries from any winery that does not maintain a physical production facility within the state. Your client, located in a neighboring state, has a robust business selling and shipping wine directly to retailers in other states but is now barred from the market in this state. The state legislature's stated purpose for the law was to ensure effective regulatory oversight and tax collection.

The court's analysis of the constitutionality of the state law under the dormant Commerce Clause will most likely focus on which fact? Select one.

The law allows in-state wineries to deliver to retailers while barring out-of-state wineries.

The state's professed goal is to ensure regulatory oversight and tax collection.

The law applies to all types of wine, regardless of origin or grape varietal.

Your client has a pre-existing business selling to retailers in other states.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Dispositive Fact Analysis

Practice Dispositive Fact Analysis 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 Dispositive Fact Analysis, 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

The court's analysis of the constitutionality of the state law under the dormant Commerce Clause will most likely focus on which fact? Select one.

The law allows in-state wineries to deliver to retailers while barring out-of-state wineries. (correct answer)
The state's professed goal is to ensure regulatory oversight and tax collection.
The law applies to all types of wine, regardless of origin or grape varietal.
Your client has a pre-existing business selling to retailers in other states.

Explanation: The dormant Commerce Clause analysis asks whether a state law discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce. A law that facially discriminates against out-of-state economic interests is subject to strict scrutiny and is almost always unconstitutional. The fact that the law, by its terms, treats in-state and out-of-state wineries differently based on their location (A) is the dispositive fact establishing facial discrimination. This triggers a presumption of invalidity. The state's professed purpose (B) will be scrutinized to see if it can be achieved by less discriminatory means. The scope of the law (C) and the impact on your client (D) are relevant context but are secondary to the primary dispositive fact of facial discrimination.

Question 2

A consumer purchased a new lawnmower. On the first use, a blade suddenly detached from the mower, flew through the air, and injured the consumer. The consumer sued the manufacturer under a strict products liability theory. During discovery, it was revealed that the consumer had replaced the original factory-installed blade bolt with a similar-looking, but lower-grade, bolt that he had in his workshop. An expert for the manufacturer testified that the factory bolt was designed to withstand the mower's vibrations, but the consumer's replacement bolt was not, causing it to fail.

The manufacturer's best defense to the strict liability claim will be based on which of the following facts? Select one.

The consumer replaced the original factory-installed bolt with his own. (correct answer)
The lawnmower was a new product recently purchased by the consumer.
The replacement bolt looked similar to the original factory bolt.
The manufacturer's expert testified that the replacement bolt was faulty.

Explanation: When you encounter a strict products liability question, remember that this theory holds manufacturers liable for defective products regardless of negligence. However, the manufacturer can defend by showing the product left their control in a safe condition and that subsequent alterations caused the harm. The manufacturer's strongest defense centers on the consumer's modification of the original product. In strict liability cases, if a consumer substantially alters a product after purchase, and that alteration causes the injury, it can break the causal chain between the manufacturer's product and the harm. Here, the consumer replaced a critical safety component (the factory bolt designed to withstand vibrations) with an inadequate substitute, directly causing the blade detachment. Answer A correctly identifies this modification as the best defense because it shows the consumer's substantial alteration caused the accident, not any defect in the manufacturer's original design. Answer B is incorrect because the product being new actually strengthens the consumer's case by eliminating wear-and-tear as a potential cause. Answer C misses the point entirely—the visual similarity of the bolts is irrelevant to their functional differences and doesn't provide a legal defense. Answer D focuses on expert testimony about the replacement bolt's inadequacy, but this testimony only supports the defense; the underlying factual basis (the consumer's replacement action) is what actually creates the defense. For bar exam products liability questions, always look for post-sale modifications or misuse that breaks the causal chain. Courts generally don't hold manufacturers liable when consumers substantially alter safety-critical components, even if the alteration seems minor.

Question 3

A driver, employed as a delivery person for a local restaurant, finished her last delivery at 4:45 PM. Her shift ended at 5:00 PM. Instead of returning directly to the restaurant, she drove five miles in the opposite direction to a dry cleaner to pick up a personal item. The dry cleaner was located on a street that was not on any of her delivery routes. After leaving the dry cleaner at 5:05 PM, she began driving back to the restaurant to clock out. On the way back, she negligently ran a red light and collided with a pedestrian's vehicle. The pedestrian sued the restaurant under the theory of respondeat superior.

The court's decision on whether the restaurant is vicariously liable will most likely turn on which of the following facts? Select one.

The driver's shift did not officially end until 5:00 PM.
The collision occurred after the driver had completed her personal errand.
The driver was driving five miles in the opposite direction from her work route. (correct answer)
The restaurant did not have a policy prohibiting personal errands during work hours.

Explanation: The dispositive issue in a respondeat superior case involving an employee's personal errand is whether the employee was on a 'frolic' (a major deviation from the scope of employment) or a 'detour' (a minor deviation). The fact that the driver traveled a significant distance in the opposite direction of her employment duties is the strongest evidence that she was on a frolic, which would sever the employer's liability. The other facts are less dispositive. While the collision occurred after the errand (B), some courts hold the frolic continues until the employee returns to the path of their duties. The shift time (A) is less important than the employee's actions. The lack of a policy (D) does not absolve the employer if the act was far outside the scope of employment.

Question 4

A tenant leased a ground-floor apartment. Three months into the lease, a new nightclub opened next door. The club generated extremely loud music from 10 PM to 4 AM every night, making it impossible for the tenant to sleep. The tenant repeatedly complained to the landlord, who owned both the apartment building and the adjacent property where the nightclub was located. The landlord took no action. After a month of sleepless nights, the tenant moved out and stopped paying rent, even though eight months remained on his lease. The landlord sued the tenant for the unpaid rent.

The tenant's best defense to the landlord's lawsuit will hinge on which of the following facts? Select one.

The landlord owned the property where the nightclub was located. (correct answer)
The tenant complained repeatedly to the landlord before moving out.
The noise from the nightclub occurred every night of the week.
The tenant moved out of the apartment after one month of disturbances.

Explanation: This question tests the doctrine of constructive eviction and the covenant of quiet enjoyment in landlord-tenant law. When a tenant claims constructive eviction as a defense to unpaid rent, courts examine whether the landlord had control over the interfering condition. The tenant's strongest defense relies on the fact that the landlord owned the property where the nightclub was located (A). This creates liability because landlords have a duty to prevent interference with tenants' quiet enjoyment when they control the source of interference. Since the landlord owned both properties, he had the legal authority to control or eliminate the noise problem but chose not to act. This transforms the situation from a third-party nuisance (which typically wouldn't excuse rent) into a landlord breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Option B is wrong because while complaining to the landlord shows the tenant acted reasonably, it doesn't establish the landlord's legal duty to remedy the problem. Option C is incorrect because the frequency of noise, while relevant to showing substantial interference, doesn't determine the landlord's liability—third-party noise every night still wouldn't excuse rent if the landlord lacked control. Option D is wrong because the timing of the tenant's departure shows he didn't endure the problem indefinitely, but doesn't establish the legal basis for constructive eviction. Remember this pattern: in constructive eviction cases, focus on the landlord's control over the interfering condition. Landlord ownership or control of the interference source is the key fact that transforms a nuisance into a breach of lease obligations.

Question 5

In 2020, a homeowner sued a contractor in state court for breach of contract related to a faulty roof installation, seeking $50,000 in damages. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the contractor, finding that the contract was valid and had been fully performed. In 2022, the homeowner discovered extensive water damage in the attic, which an expert confirmed was caused by the same faulty roof installation. The homeowner filed a new lawsuit in the same court against the same contractor, this time alleging negligence and seeking $100,000 for the water damage.

The contractor's motion to dismiss the second lawsuit will most likely succeed or fail based on which of the following facts? Select one.

The second lawsuit is based on a theory of negligence, whereas the first was for breach of contract.
The water damage in the attic was not discovered by the homeowner until 2022.
The second lawsuit seeks a different amount of damages than the first lawsuit.
Both lawsuits are based on the same faulty roof installation by the contractor. (correct answer)

Explanation: The issue is claim preclusion (res judicata), which bars a party from litigating a claim that has already been decided in a final judgment on the merits between the same parties. Most modern jurisdictions use a 'transactional' approach, which bars all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, regardless of the legal theory. The dispositive fact is that both lawsuits arise from the single event of the faulty roof installation (D). Because the negligence claim arose from the same transaction as the contract claim, it should have been brought in the first lawsuit. The fact that the theory is different (A) or the damages are different (C) does not overcome claim preclusion under the transactional test. The late discovery of the damage (B) might be relevant for a statute of limitations analysis, but it generally does not defeat claim preclusion.

Question 6

On February 1, a landowner conveyed a parcel of land to a developer by a valid deed. The developer did not record the deed. On March 1, the landowner, experiencing financial trouble, conveyed the same parcel of land to an investor for fair market value. The investor had no knowledge of the prior conveyance to the developer. On March 5, the developer recorded his deed. On March 10, the investor recorded her deed. The jurisdiction has a race-notice recording statute.

The determination of who has superior title to the parcel will be based on which of the following facts? Select one.

The developer recorded his deed on March 5. (correct answer)
The investor paid fair market value for the property.
The investor had no knowledge of the prior conveyance when she purchased.
The investor recorded her deed on March 10.

Explanation: When you encounter property law questions involving multiple conveyances of the same land, you need to analyze the applicable recording statute to determine who has superior title. This jurisdiction has a race-notice statute, which protects subsequent purchasers who both (1) take without notice of the prior conveyance and (2) record first. Let's trace through the timeline: The developer received his deed on February 1 but didn't record it. The investor purchased on March 1 without knowledge of the developer's deed, qualifying her as a bona fide purchaser. However, the developer recorded first on March 5, while the investor didn't record until March 10. Under a race-notice statute, the developer wins because he recorded first. Even though the investor was a good faith purchaser without notice, she loses because she failed to record before the developer did. Looking at the wrong answers: (B) is incorrect because while the investor's payment of fair market value helps establish her as a bona fide purchaser, this alone doesn't determine title under race-notice. (C) is also insufficient—the investor's lack of knowledge is necessary but not sufficient; she must also win the recording race. (D) fails because the investor recorded second, which actually hurts her case rather than helps it. Study tip: For race-notice questions, remember both elements must be satisfied: the subsequent purchaser must be without notice AND must record first. If either element fails, the prior grantee wins, regardless of the equities involved.

Question 7

A state university, in an effort to promote local businesses, enacted a new policy for its food services program. The policy requires that all produce purchased for the university's dining halls must be sourced from farms located within the state. A large agricultural corporation located in a neighboring state, which had previously been a major supplier to the university, challenged the policy in federal court, alleging it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional analysis of the university's policy will primarily turn on which of the following facts? Select one.

The policy applies to all produce, not just a specific type of crop.
The state university is a government-owned and operated entity. (correct answer)
The out-of-state corporation was previously a major supplier.
The policy was enacted to promote local businesses within the state.

Explanation: The issue is whether the policy violates the dormant Commerce Clause, which generally prohibits states from discriminating against interstate commerce. However, the 'market participant' doctrine provides a major exception. When a state or state entity acts as a participant in the market (like a buyer or seller), rather than as a regulator, it may favor its own citizens. The fact that the university is a state-owned entity (B) acting as a buyer of goods is the dispositive fact that allows it to invoke the market participant exception and defeat the dormant Commerce Clause challenge. The policy's motivation (D) and scope (A) are less important once the market participant doctrine applies. The harm to the specific corporation (C) establishes standing but does not resolve the constitutional question.

Question 8

A car dealership, which is a merchant of new and used vehicles, sent a signed letter to a potential buyer on May 1. The letter stated, 'We offer to sell you the 2023 sedan, VIN #123, for $25,000. This offer will be held open for you until May 15.' The letter did not state any requirement of consideration to keep the offer open. On May 10, having received a better offer from another person, the dealership called the potential buyer and revoked its offer. On May 11, the potential buyer arrived at the dealership with a check for $25,000 and attempted to accept the offer. The dealership refused to sell the car.

In a breach of contract action, the court's decision will most likely depend on which of the following facts? Select one.

The buyer did not provide any consideration to keep the offer open.
The dealership is a merchant that regularly deals in cars. (correct answer)
The dealership communicated its revocation to the buyer on May 10.
The buyer attempted to accept the offer on May 11 with a valid check.

Explanation: This question involves the UCC's 'firm offer' rule, which applies to the sale of goods. Under UCC § 2-205, an offer by a merchant to buy or sell goods in a signed writing which by its terms gives assurance that it will be held open is not revocable, for lack of consideration, during the time stated. The most dispositive fact to establish that this was an irrevocable firm offer is that the dealership was a merchant (B). Without this fact, the common law would apply, and the offer would be revocable at any time before acceptance because no consideration was paid to create an option contract (A). The communication of revocation (C) is only effective if the offer was revocable. The buyer's attempt to accept (D) is only effective if the offer was still open.

Question 9

The manufacturer's best defense to the strict liability claim will be based on which of the following facts? Select one.

The consumer replaced the original factory-installed bolt with his own. (correct answer)
The lawnmower was a new product recently purchased by the consumer.
The replacement bolt looked similar to the original factory bolt.
The manufacturer's expert testified that the replacement bolt was faulty.

Question 10

At a defendant's trial for bank robbery, the prosecution calls a witness who was in the bank during the robbery. The witness testifies that immediately after the robber fled, a bank teller, who was visibly shaking and crying, screamed, 'The man in the green jacket took everything! He had a gun!' The teller is available to testify but has no memory of the event due to trauma. The defense objects to the witness's testimony about the teller's statement on hearsay grounds.

The admissibility of the witness's testimony regarding the teller's statement will most likely depend on which fact? Select one.

The teller is available to testify at the trial.
The teller was visibly shaking and crying when she made the statement. (correct answer)
The teller has no memory of the robbery event itself.
The statement described the robber and the crime that had just occurred.

Explanation: The statement is hearsay, so its admissibility depends on an exception. The most likely exception is 'excited utterance' under FRE 803(2). A key element of this exception is that the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event when the statement was made. The fact that the teller was visibly shaking and crying is the most direct evidence of her state of nervous excitement, making it the dispositive fact for this exception. The declarant's availability (A) is irrelevant for this exception. The memory loss (C) might make the teller 'unavailable' for other exceptions, but not this one. The content of the statement (D) is relevant to show it 'related' to the event, but the emotional state (B) is the crucial element for the exception's applicability.

Question 11

For 16 years, a farmer has been crossing a corner of his neighbor's wooded property to reach a public road. The farmer has never asked for permission, believing the path was on his own land. The neighbor, who lives on the property, was aware of the farmer's routine use but never objected, as it caused no harm. The statutory period for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 15 years. The neighbor recently sold the property to a buyer. The buyer had the land surveyed and discovered the farmer's path was on her property. The buyer immediately erected a fence to block the path. The farmer has sued to establish a prescriptive easement.

The buyer's defense against the farmer's claim will most likely succeed or fail based on which of the following facts? Select one.

The farmer used the path for more than the statutory period of 15 years.
The farmer mistakenly believed the path was on his own land.
The neighbor knew about the farmer's use of the path and never objected. (correct answer)
The buyer erected a fence immediately after purchasing the property.

Explanation: The issue is whether the farmer's use was 'adverse' or 'hostile,' a key element for a prescriptive easement. Use with the owner's permission is not adverse. The neighbor's awareness of the use coupled with his failure to object could be interpreted in two ways: as tacit permission (defeating the claim) or as acquiescence to a hostile use (supporting the claim). The court's interpretation of this specific fact is therefore dispositive. The farmer's mistaken belief (B) generally satisfies the hostility requirement in most jurisdictions. The duration of use (A) satisfies that element but isn't the contested issue. The buyer's fence (D) is relevant to stopping a new claim from ripening but does not defeat a claim that has already vested.

Question 12

A man decided to rob a jewelry store. He purchased a ski mask and a replica handgun. He drove to the store, parked across the street, and sat in his car for an hour, watching the employees and customers. A police officer on patrol noticed the man's suspicious behavior, approached the car, and saw the ski mask and replica handgun on the passenger seat. The man was arrested and charged with attempted robbery. At the time of his arrest, the man had not yet exited his vehicle.

In determining whether the man is guilty of attempted robbery, which fact is most critical for the prosecution to establish? Select one.

The man purchased a ski mask and a replica handgun before driving to the store.
The man parked his car across the street from the jewelry store.
The man sat in his car for an hour, surveilling the store. (correct answer)
The man had not yet exited his vehicle at the time of his arrest.

Explanation: The crime of attempt requires that the defendant take a 'substantial step' beyond mere preparation toward the commission of the crime. Purchasing materials (A) and driving to the location (B) are often considered mere preparation. However, lying in wait or surveilling the place of the contemplated crime is a classic example of a substantial step under the Model Penal Code test used by many jurisdictions. Therefore, the fact that the man was surveilling the store for an hour (C) is the most dispositive fact in proving the attempt. The fact that he had not yet exited his car (D) is the strongest fact for the defense, but the prosecution's case will turn on convincing the jury that the surveillance constituted a substantial step.

Question 13

A builder contracted with a landowner to construct a house for $500,000, with completion by June 1. On May 15, after a dispute over materials, the builder sent the landowner a letter stating, 'Due to our disagreement and rising costs, we will not be able to finish your house under the current terms.' The landowner immediately hired another contractor to finish the job for an additional $75,000. The original builder now claims that his letter was merely an expression of frustration and not a repudiation of the contract.

The determination of whether the builder's letter constituted an anticipatory repudiation will primarily turn on which of the following facts? Select one.

The builder and landowner had a dispute over materials before the letter was sent.
The builder's letter stated he would not finish the house 'under the current terms.' (correct answer)
The landowner hired a replacement contractor for an additional $75,000.
The letter was sent on May 15, before the June 1 completion date.

Explanation: Anticipatory repudiation requires a clear and unequivocal statement that the promisor will not perform. The court must analyze the language used. The statement that the builder will not finish the house 'under the current terms' (B) is the key fact. A court will analyze this language to determine if it was an unambiguous refusal to perform or merely a request to modify the contract. The outcome hinges on the interpretation of this specific phrase. The prior dispute (A) provides context but is not the repudiation itself. The landowner's hiring of a replacement (C) shows he treated it as a repudiation, but this doesn't make it one. The timing of the letter (D) is what makes the repudiation 'anticipatory,' but the content of the letter (B) is what makes it a repudiation in the first place.

Question 14

The determination of whether the builder's letter constituted an anticipatory repudiation will primarily turn on which of the following facts? Select one.

The builder and landowner had a dispute over materials before the letter was sent.
The builder's letter stated he would not finish the house 'under the current terms.' (correct answer)
The landowner hired a replacement contractor for an additional $75,000.
The letter was sent on May 15, before the June 1 completion date.

Question 15

A homeowner hired an electrician to rewire an antique lamp. The electrician negligently performed the work, creating a short circuit. That evening, the homeowner plugged in the lamp, which immediately sparked and started a small fire. The fire was confined to a lampshade and a nearby curtain. The homeowner's cousin, who lived three blocks away, heard the fire engines and, fearing for the homeowner's safety, ran to the house. While running, the cousin tripped on a cracked sidewalk, fell, and broke her arm. The cousin has sued the electrician for negligence.

The electrician's strongest defense against the cousin's claim will be based on an argument that focuses on which of the following facts? Select one.

The electrician was hired to rewire a lamp, not inspect the whole house.
The fire caused by the faulty wiring was small and quickly contained.
The cousin lived three blocks away from the homeowner's house. (correct answer)
The cousin's injury was caused by a cracked sidewalk, not by the fire.

Explanation: The dispositive issue here is proximate cause, specifically the foreseeability of the plaintiff. Under the majority (Cardozo) view, a defendant's duty of care extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs in the 'zone of danger.' The electrician's negligence created a risk of fire in the home. It is not foreseeable that a relative living several blocks away would hear sirens, run to the scene, and injure herself in an unrelated manner. The fact that the cousin lived three blocks away (C) is most dispositive of the argument that she was not a foreseeable plaintiff. The cause of injury (D) relates to the chain of causation but is less fundamental than the plaintiff's foreseeability. The size of the fire (B) and the scope of the electrician's duty to the homeowner (A) are not relevant to the claim brought by the cousin.

Question 16

You represent a creditor who obtained a judgment against an individual who was the sole shareholder, director, and officer of a small construction company. The company has no assets, but the shareholder has significant personal wealth. During discovery, you learned that the shareholder frequently used the company's bank account to pay for his personal expenses, including mortgage payments, family vacations, and car loans. He did not record these payments as loans or salary and did not keep corporate minutes. The company also failed to issue stock certificates.

In advising your client on the likelihood of piercing the corporate veil, which of the following facts is most dispositive? Select one.

The company was operated with the shareholder as the sole owner and director.
The company failed to observe corporate formalities such as issuing stock.
The shareholder used the corporate bank account to pay personal expenses. (correct answer)
The company itself currently has no assets to satisfy the judgment.

Explanation: Piercing the corporate veil requires showing that the corporation is merely an 'alter ego' of the shareholder and that an inequitable result would occur if the veil is not pierced. The strongest evidence of an alter ego relationship is the commingling of corporate and personal assets. The fact that the shareholder used the company account for personal expenses (C) is the most direct and dispositive evidence of such commingling and a disregard for the corporate form. While failure to observe formalities (B) and the fact that it's a closely held corporation (A) are factors, they are less compelling than the active commingling of funds. The undercapitalization (D) is a factor, but the commingling of funds is typically the most persuasive fact for a court.

Question 17

Police responded to a call about a loud party. From the public sidewalk, an officer saw through a large, uncovered picture window what appeared to be several minors drinking beer. The officer entered the house through the unlocked front door without a warrant and began questioning the partygoers. In the kitchen, the officer saw a bag of what she recognized as cocaine on the kitchen counter, next to the homeowner. She arrested the homeowner for possession of cocaine. The homeowner has moved to suppress the cocaine.

The success of the homeowner's motion to suppress will be determined primarily by which of the following facts? Select one.

The officer's observation of minors drinking beer was made from a public sidewalk.
The cocaine was on the kitchen counter, visible to anyone in that room.
The officer entered the home through an unlocked front door without a warrant. (correct answer)
The party was loud enough to generate a complaint from a neighbor.

Explanation: The dispositive issue is the legality of the officer's entry into the home. The Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless searches and seizures of a home. While the officer's observation from the sidewalk (A) may have established probable cause, it does not, by itself, create an exception to the warrant requirement for entering a home. The plain view doctrine allows seizure of contraband, but the officer must be lawfully present at the location from which the item is viewed. Because the cocaine was seen after the officer entered the house, the legality of that entry is the threshold question. The unlocked door does not constitute an invitation to enter. Without an exigent circumstance (which is not clearly present), the warrantless entry (C) was unlawful, making the subsequent seizure of the cocaine the fruit of a poisonous tree. The fact the cocaine was in plain view inside the kitchen (B) is irrelevant if the entry was illegal.

Question 18

The buyer's defense against the farmer's claim will most likely succeed or fail based on which of the following facts? Select one.

The farmer used the path for more than the statutory period of 15 years.
The farmer mistakenly believed the path was on his own land.
The neighbor knew about the farmer's use of the path and never objected. (correct answer)
The buyer erected a fence immediately after purchasing the property.

Question 19

You are representing a client who was sued for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleges that your client orally agreed to manage a construction project. The project was complex and involved coordinating dozens of subcontractors over a period that both parties acknowledged would likely be about 18 months from the start date. The agreement was never put in writing. Six months into the project, your client was fired and replaced. Your client intends to raise the Statute of Frauds as a defense.

Which of the following facts is most dispositive in determining whether the Statute of Frauds will bar enforcement of the oral agreement? Select one.

The client was fired only six months after the project began.
The parties acknowledged the project would likely last 18 months. (correct answer)
The contract was for management services rather than for the sale of goods.
The agreement involved numerous complex duties and subcontractors.

Explanation: The Statute of Frauds requires contracts that cannot by their terms be performed within one year to be in writing. The key inquiry is whether it was possible to perform the contract within one year, regardless of how long it actually took. The fact that the parties themselves acknowledged at the time of formation that the project would likely last 18 months is the most dispositive fact indicating that the contract, by its terms, could not be completed within a year. The fact that the client was fired at six months (A) is irrelevant to formation. That it was a services contract (C) is what places it under the one-year provision rather than the UCC, but it is not the dispositive fact. The complexity (D) reinforces the timeline but is less direct than the parties' own estimation of the duration.

Question 20

A pedestrian who lives in State A was struck and injured by a car in State B. The driver of the car is a citizen of State B. The pedestrian filed a lawsuit against the driver in federal court in State A. The driver's only connection to State A is that she maintains a passively-viewed, informational website for her small artisanal soap business, which is located and operated exclusively in State B. The website lists products and prices but does not allow for online orders. A potential customer in State A would have to call a phone number listed on the site or travel to State B to make a purchase. The driver has never sold any soap to anyone in State A.

In determining whether the federal court in State A has personal jurisdiction over the driver, which of the following facts is most relevant? Select one.

The pedestrian is a citizen of State A.
The accident occurred in State B.
The driver has never made a sale to a resident of State A.
The driver's website does not permit online transactions. (correct answer)

Explanation: The issue is whether the driver has sufficient minimum contacts with State A for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction. For websites, courts distinguish between passive sites (which only make information available) and interactive sites (which allow for business transactions). The fact that the website is passive and does not permit online orders is most relevant to the 'purposeful availment' prong of the minimum contacts test, as it shows the driver did not purposefully direct her commercial activity toward State A. The plaintiff's residence (A) is not a basis for jurisdiction over the defendant. The location of the accident (B) points to jurisdiction in State B, not A. The lack of sales (C) is evidence, but the reason for the lack of sales—the passive nature of the contact (D)—is the more fundamental jurisdictional fact.