Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Licenses
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
LicensesQuestion 1 of 20

Neighbor used O's driveway daily for 15 years with O's oral permission. O revokes. Neighbor has:

A revocable license only
An easement by prescription
An easement by implication
An easement by estoppel
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Licenses

Practice Licenses 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 Licenses, 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

Neighbor used O's driveway daily for 15 years with O's oral permission. O revokes. Neighbor has:

  1. A revocable license only (correct answer)
  2. An easement by prescription
  3. An easement by implication
  4. An easement by estoppel
Explanation: Because Neighbor used the driveway only with O's oral permission, the use was permissive, not adverse. Permissive use cannot ripen into an easement by prescription, and nothing shows reliance or a severed estate needed for estoppel or implication. So once O revokes, Neighbor has only a revocable license. The tempting wrong answer is easement by prescription, but 15 years of permitted use is not hostile.

Question 2

O orally allows B to park on O's lot. O sells to S. B parks after the sale. S:

  1. Must permit the parking
  2. May eject B as a trespasser (correct answer)
  3. Takes subject to the license
  4. Owes B reasonable notice
Explanation: An oral license to use land is revocable and personal to the licensee. When O sells the lot, the license ends, so B no longer has permission and is trespassing against S, who may eject B. The tempting answer is that S takes subject to the license, but a license doesn't run with the land like an easement.

Question 3

O orally promises P a permanent path right; O watches P spend money improving it. O revokes. P has:

  1. A revocable license only
  2. An easement by estoppel (correct answer)
  3. An easement by prescription
  4. A license with an interest
Explanation: Because P relied on O's oral promise of a permanent path by spending money on improvements while O watched and did nothing, O is estopped from revoking the right. That reliance turns the oral promise into an easement by estoppel. A revocable license is only a bare permission, but here the permanent promise plus reliance makes revocation unfair. There is no prescription because the use was permissive, not hostile for a statutory period.

Question 4

O grants B and B's assigns, in writing, a right to cross O's land. B owns no neighboring land. This is:

  1. A revocable license
  2. An appurtenant easement
  3. An irrevocable license
  4. An easement in gross (correct answer)
Explanation: Because B owns no neighboring land, the right to cross O's land benefits B personally rather than any parcel of land. That makes it an easement in gross, not an appurtenant easement. The writing and the words "B's assigns" show an intended permanent, transferable property interest, so it is not merely a license. The tempting wrong answer is appurtenant easement, but an appurtenant easement requires a dominant estate that B does not have.

Question 5

O sells P a boat stored on O's land; P may enter to retrieve it. O revokes. P:

  1. Has a license revocable by O
  2. Has an easement appurtenant
  3. Has an irrevocable license (correct answer)
  4. Has no right to retrieve
Explanation: P owns the boat, so the license to enter O's land is coupled with an interest in the chattel and is irrevocable until P has a reasonable chance to retrieve it. The tempting wrong answer, a revocable license, treats this as bare permission, but the ownership interest makes a mere revocable license insufficient.

Question 6

An elderly woman orally told her neighbor, "Of course you can use the path across my backyard to get to the lake, dear. Use it as long as you live next door." The neighbor used the path for 10 years. During that time, the neighbor installed solar-powered lights along the path at a cost of $400. The woman died, and her son inherited the property. The son immediately blocked the path and told the neighbor she could no longer use it.

An elderly woman orally told her neighbor, "Of course you can use the path across my backyard to get to the lake, dear. Use it as long as you live next door." The neighbor used the path for 10 years. During that time, the neighbor installed solar-powered lights along the path at a cost of $400. The woman died, and her son inherited the property. The son immediately blocked the path and told the neighbor she could no longer use it.

What is the neighbor's strongest argument for her right to continue using the path?

  1. She has an easement by prescription because 10 years exceeds the statutory period, regardless of the permissive nature of the original grant.
  2. She has a license that became irrevocable through estoppel due to her expenditure on the lights. (correct answer)
  3. She has a valid oral easement for life because the duration was specified by the woman.
  4. She has a license that remains valid because the son is bound by his mother's promises.
Explanation: The neighbor's strongest argument is that the license became irrevocable through estoppel. She reasonably relied on the licensor's promise by making a substantial improvement to the path (the lights). Courts will consider whether the $400 expenditure is substantial enough to warrant estoppel. An easement by prescription fails because the use was permissive, not adverse - permissive use can never ripen into prescription regardless of duration. An oral easement is invalid under the Statute of Frauds. A simple license is personal to the licensor and terminates upon her death, so it would not bind the son unless it became irrevocable.

Question 7

A man who owned a cabin gave his brother a key and told him, "You can use my cabin for a weekend fishing trip anytime you like." The brother used the cabin several times over the next year. The man then died, leaving the cabin to his daughter in his will. When the brother arrived for a fishing trip a month later, the daughter, who was there, refused to let him enter.

  1. The brother has a right to use the cabin because the grant was from a family member.
  2. The brother has a right to use the cabin because the delivery of the key created a property interest.
  3. The brother has no right to use the cabin because the license was personal and terminated on the man's death. (correct answer)
  4. The brother has no right to use the cabin because he did not pay consideration for the promise.
Explanation: The oral permission to use the cabin created a license. A license is a personal privilege and does not create an interest in land. Unless it becomes irrevocable through estoppel (which requires substantial reliance, not present here), a license is terminated by the death of the licensor. Therefore, the permission granted by the father is not binding on the daughter who inherited the property. The family relationship, delivery of a key, and lack of consideration are all consistent with a license but do not create a more durable property right.

Question 8

A developer sold a house in a new subdivision. The deed included a covenant requiring the developer to build and maintain a swimming pool for the use of all residents. For the first two years, the residents used the pool. The developer then sold the pool parcel to a third party, who immediately closed it.

What right did the residents have regarding the pool?

  1. A revocable license to use the pool, which the new owner was free to terminate.
  2. A leasehold interest in the pool facility.
  3. A prescriptive right to use the pool from their two years of use.
  4. An easement to use the pool, created by the express covenant in their deeds. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about property rights and covenants, focus on identifying what type of legal interest was created and whether it runs with the land. Here, the developer made an express covenant in the deed to "build and maintain a swimming pool for the use of all residents." This language creates more than a mere personal promise—it establishes an easement appurtenant. An easement gives the holder a legally enforceable right to use another's property for a specific purpose. The covenant was written into the deeds, making it an express easement that benefits the residential lots (dominant estate) and burdens the pool parcel (servient estate). This right runs with the land, meaning it binds future owners of the pool property. Answer D correctly identifies this as an easement created by express covenant. The residents have enforceable rights regardless of who owns the pool. Answer A is wrong because a license is revocable permission, typically informal and not recorded in deeds. The formal covenant here creates stronger rights than a mere license. Answer B fails because a leasehold requires a landlord-tenant relationship with exclusive possession for a defined term. The residents don't have exclusive possession—they share usage rights. Answer C misapplies prescriptive easements, which require hostile, open, and continuous use for the statutory period (usually much longer than two years). Here, the residents used the pool with permission under the covenant, not hostilely. Remember: Express covenants in deeds typically create easements when they grant usage rights in property. Look for formal language and recorded agreements rather than informal arrangements.

Question 9

A farmer sold a landlocked parcel of his land to a buyer. The properly executed and recorded deed expressly granted the buyer "a thirty-foot-wide right-of-way for ingress and egress over the seller's remaining property to the public highway." A few years later, the farmer sought to terminate the buyer's access, arguing that he had only granted revocable permission.

What is the best characterization of the buyer's right of access?

  1. An easement by necessity, because the parcel is landlocked.
  2. An express easement appurtenant, created by the deed. (correct answer)
  3. An irrevocable license, because the buyer purchased the land in reliance on the access.
  4. A revocable license, because the term "right-of-way" can simply mean permission.
Explanation: When a right of access is created in a writing that complies with the Statute of Frauds (like a deed), it creates an express easement. Because it benefits a specific parcel of land (the dominant estate), it is an easement appurtenant. While the facts would also support an easement by necessity, the presence of an express grant in the deed is controlling and creates an express easement. The grant of a property interest in a deed is not a mere revocable license.

Question 10

A corporation entered into a signed written agreement with a landowner, labeled "Billboard Agreement," allowing the corporation to erect and maintain a large billboard at a specific location on the landowner's rural property. The agreement was for a term of 10 years for a fixed annual payment. Two years later, the landowner sold the property to a developer who was aware of the agreement. The developer demanded that the corporation remove the billboard.

What is the corporation's strongest argument that it has a right to maintain the billboard?

  1. The agreement created a lease, giving the corporation an exclusive possessory interest in that portion of the land.
  2. The agreement created an easement in gross, which is an interest in land binding on a subsequent purchaser with notice. (correct answer)
  3. The agreement created a license that became irrevocable due to the corporation's expense in constructing the billboard.
  4. The agreement created a profit à prendre allowing the corporation to use the land for commercial gain.
Explanation: The agreement, being a long-term written instrument granting the right to use a specific part of the property for a particular purpose, has the characteristics of an easement in gross, not a mere license. An easement is an interest in land that, if properly created, is binding on subsequent purchasers of the servient estate who have notice. A lease is incorrect because the corporation does not have exclusive possession of the property. While an irrevocable license theory might be arguable, characterizing the right as an easement is a stronger argument for binding a successor in interest. A profit involves the right to take something from the land, which is not the case here.

Question 11

A farmer gave his neighbor oral permission to cross a field on the farm as a shortcut to a public road. The next day, the farmer erected a gate at the entrance to the field and locked it. When the neighbor asked the farmer for a key, the farmer refused.

  1. The permission is still valid because a license cannot be revoked without reasonable notice.
  2. The permission has been revoked by the farmer's actions inconsistent with the license. (correct answer)
  3. The permission became an irrevocable license as soon as the neighbor used the shortcut once.
  4. The permission created an easement by estoppel because the farmer knew the neighbor would rely on it.
Explanation: A license is freely revocable at the will of the licensor. Revocation does not require formal or even direct notice. It can be accomplished by actions that are inconsistent with the continuation of the license, such as locking a gate or blocking the path. The farmer's act of locking the gate and refusing to provide a key was a clear revocation of the license. Mere use does not create an irrevocable license; substantial reliance is required.

Question 12

You are representing a client who owns a downtown parking garage. A customer paid for a monthly parking pass that allows her to park her car in any unreserved spot in the garage. The pass is a small card that the customer swipes to enter and exit. Last week, the customer left her car in the garage for seven consecutive days. Your client, needing space, had the car towed, citing a rule in the monthly pass agreement that prohibits storage of vehicles for more than 72 hours. The customer is threatening to sue for wrongful eviction, claiming she has a lease for a parking space.

Which of the following legal concepts is most critical for determining whether your client's actions were permissible?

  1. The distinction between a lease and a license. (correct answer)
  2. The doctrine of easement by necessity.
  3. The requirements for creating a bailment.
  4. The rule against perpetuities.
Explanation: The central issue is the nature of the right granted by the parking pass. If it's a lease, the customer has a possessory interest in real property, and the landlord-tenant laws regarding eviction would apply. If it's a license, she merely has a contractual privilege to use the garage, which can be revoked for breach of its terms (like the 72-hour rule) without formal eviction proceedings. The lack of a specific, designated spot strongly suggests a license, not a lease. Bailment concerns possession of personal property, not rights to real property. The other concepts are irrelevant.

Question 13

A landowner owned two adjacent lots. He built a house on the first lot and a detached garage on the second. To access the garage, he built a paved driveway that crossed a portion of the first lot. He later sold the second lot with the garage to a buyer, and the deed was silent regarding the driveway. For the next five years, the buyer used the driveway without objection. The original landowner then sold the first lot to a new owner, who immediately built a fence blocking the driveway.

In a lawsuit to re-establish access, what is the garage owner's strongest claim?

  1. An easement by necessity because the garage is otherwise inaccessible.
  2. An implied easement based on prior existing use. (correct answer)
  3. A license that became irrevocable through five years of continuous use.
  4. An easement by prescription from five years of open and notorious use.
Explanation: An implied easement from prior use (or quasi-easement) arises when a common owner severs property, a use was in place before severance that was apparent and continuous, and its continuation is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant parcel. Here, the driveway was apparent, continuous, and necessary for the garage's use. This is a stronger claim than an easement by necessity, which requires strict necessity (landlocked property), not just inaccessibility of a garage. The use was not adverse, so prescription fails. Mere use, without substantial investment in reliance, does not create an irrevocable license.

Question 14

A landowner and his neighbor signed a formal, written document, which they recorded, stating that the neighbor was granted the right to use a swimming pool on the landowner's property for a period of 10 years. The landowner then sold his property. The new owner, citing liability concerns, has barred the neighbor from the pool.

  1. The neighbor has a right to use the pool because the recorded document created an easement for a term of years. (correct answer)
  2. The neighbor has a right to use the pool because the document created a leasehold interest in the pool.
  3. The neighbor has no right to use the pool because the document was a license, which is always revocable by a new owner.
  4. The neighbor has no right to use the pool because a right to swim is not a recognized property interest.
Explanation: The written, recorded document granting a right to use property for a specific purpose and duration created an express easement for a term of years. Unlike a license, an easement is an interest in land. Because it was recorded, subsequent purchasers have constructive notice and are bound by its terms. Therefore, the new owner cannot bar the neighbor from the pool. The right is non-possessory, so it is an easement, not a lease. The right to use recreational facilities is a recognized subject for an easement.

Question 15

A corporation entered into a signed written agreement with a landowner, labeled "Billboard Agreement," allowing the corporation to erect and maintain a large billboard at a specific location on the landowner's rural property. The agreement was for a term of 10 years for a fixed annual payment. Two years later, the landowner sold the property to a developer who was aware of the agreement. The developer demanded that the corporation remove the billboard.

What is the corporation's strongest argument that it has a right to maintain the billboard?

  1. The agreement created a lease, giving the corporation an exclusive possessory interest in that portion of the land.
  2. The agreement created an easement in gross, which is an interest in land binding on a subsequent purchaser with notice. (correct answer)
  3. The agreement created a license that became irrevocable due to the corporation's expense in constructing the billboard.
  4. The agreement created a profit à prendre allowing the corporation to use the land for commercial gain.
Explanation: The agreement, being a long-term written instrument granting the right to use a specific part of the property for a particular purpose, has the characteristics of an easement in gross, not a mere license. An easement is an interest in land that, if properly created, is binding on subsequent purchasers of the servient estate who have notice. A lease is incorrect because the corporation does not have exclusive possession of the property. While an irrevocable license theory might be arguable, characterizing the right as an easement is a stronger argument for binding a successor in interest. A profit involves the right to take something from the land, which is not the case here.

Question 16

A developer sold a house in a new subdivision. The deed included a covenant requiring the developer to build and maintain a swimming pool for the use of all residents. For the first two years, the residents used the pool. The developer then sold the pool parcel to a third party, who immediately closed it.

What right did the residents have regarding the pool?

  1. A revocable license to use the pool, which the new owner was free to terminate.
  2. A leasehold interest in the pool facility.
  3. A prescriptive right to use the pool from their two years of use.
  4. An easement to use the pool, created by the express covenant in their deeds. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about property rights and covenants, focus on identifying what type of legal interest was created and whether it runs with the land. Here, the developer made an express covenant in the deed to "build and maintain a swimming pool for the use of all residents." This language creates more than a mere personal promise—it establishes an easement appurtenant. An easement gives the holder a legally enforceable right to use another's property for a specific purpose. The covenant was written into the deeds, making it an express easement that benefits the residential lots (dominant estate) and burdens the pool parcel (servient estate). This right runs with the land, meaning it binds future owners of the pool property. Answer D correctly identifies this as an easement created by express covenant. The residents have enforceable rights regardless of who owns the pool. Answer A is wrong because a license is revocable permission, typically informal and not recorded in deeds. The formal covenant here creates stronger rights than a mere license. Answer B fails because a leasehold requires a landlord-tenant relationship with exclusive possession for a defined term. The residents don't have exclusive possession—they share usage rights. Answer C misapplies prescriptive easements, which require hostile, open, and continuous use for the statutory period (usually much longer than two years). Here, the residents used the pool with permission under the covenant, not hostilely. Remember: Express covenants in deeds typically create easements when they grant usage rights in property. Look for formal language and recorded agreements rather than informal arrangements.

Question 17

A farmer orally permitted his neighbor to construct and use a drainage ditch across the corner of the farmer's field to prevent the neighbor's property from flooding. In reliance on this permission, the neighbor spent $15,000 to hire an excavation company to dig the ditch. A year later, the farmer had a dispute with the neighbor and filled in the ditch.

What is the neighbor's best argument for a legal right to the drainage ditch?

  1. The neighbor has a valid oral easement because there was consideration in the form of improved drainage for the area.
  2. The neighbor has an easement by implication because the ditch is necessary to protect his property.
  3. The neighbor has an irrevocable license based on the doctrine of estoppel. (correct answer)
  4. The neighbor has an easement by prescription because he used the ditch for over a year.
Explanation: This is a classic case of an irrevocable license. When a licensee expends substantial money or labor in reasonable reliance on the continuation of the license, the licensor may be estopped from revoking it. The $15,000 expenditure is substantial reliance. An easement is an interest in land and generally requires a writing under the Statute of Frauds. An easement by implication requires a prior common owner. Easement by prescription requires adverse use for the statutory period, which is much longer than one year, and the use here was permissive, not adverse.

Question 18

A landowner sent his friend a signed, handwritten note that stated: "I hereby grant you the right to hunt on my property for the rest of your life." The document was not witnessed or recorded and did not meet the jurisdiction's statutory formalities for the conveyance of an interest in real property. The friend hunted on the property for two seasons. The landowner then sold the property to a conservation group, which prohibited all hunting.

What right, if any, does the friend have to continue hunting on the property?

  1. He has a profit à prendre in gross for life, which is binding on the conservation group.
  2. He has no right because the failed attempt to create a profit resulted in a revocable license that terminated upon sale. (correct answer)
  3. He has an irrevocable license because the landowner granted the right for the friend's lifetime.
  4. He has an easement by estoppel because he relied on the grant by purchasing hunting gear.
Explanation: The right to hunt is a type of profit à prendre, which is an interest in land and must satisfy the Statute of Frauds and deed formalities. Because the writing was defective, it failed to create a valid profit. A failed attempt to create an easement or profit results in a license. Because the friend did not expend substantial funds on the land itself in reliance on the license, it remained revocable. A license is automatically revoked when the licensor conveys the property. The language "for the rest of your life" does not make a license irrevocable without estoppel.

Question 19

A university sold a professor an annual parking permit. The permit stated that it authorized parking in "Faculty Lot G" on a first-come, first-served basis. Midway through the academic year, the university closed Lot G to begin construction of a new library. The university designated a new, more distant lot for faculty parking. The professor sued, claiming a right to park in Lot G or a substantially similar location for the remainder of the year.

What is the university's best defense to the professor's claim?

  1. The permit created a lease, which was terminated under the doctrine of frustration of purpose.
  2. The permit created a license, which did not grant a right to a specific space and was subject to the university's regulations. (correct answer)
  3. The permit created an easement appurtenant to the professor's employment, but it was extinguished by the university's necessity.
  4. The permit was a contract that was voidable because of a mutual mistake of fact regarding the future availability of the lot.
Explanation: The parking permit did not grant an interest in land (easement) or exclusive possession of a specific space (lease). It granted a privilege to use a general area, which is a classic license. As a license, its terms are governed by the contract between the parties. The university's best defense is that the license did not guarantee access to a specific lot, only to its parking system, and it retained the right to regulate its facilities. This is a much stronger argument than trying to terminate a lease or easement.

Question 20

For 30 years, a landowner permitted his neighbors to cross a corner of his large, unfenced property to access a state park. The landowner was friendly with the neighbors and never objected. The landowner recently died, and his heir, who inherited the property, immediately put up a fence and "No Trespassing" signs.

What is the neighbors' strongest argument that they have a right to continue crossing the property?

  1. They have an easement by prescription from over 20 years of open and continuous use.
  2. They have a license that became irrevocable through long-term acquiescence by the original landowner.
  3. They have an easement by implication from prior existing use.
  4. They have no right because the permissive use was a license that terminated upon the death of the licensor. (correct answer)
Explanation: The use was expressly permissive, not adverse or hostile. Therefore, an easement by prescription cannot arise, regardless of the duration of the use. A license is a revocable privilege. Long-term use does not, by itself, make a license irrevocable; estoppel requires substantial reliance, such as making improvements, which is not indicated here. A license is personal to the licensor and is terminated by the licensor's death. Therefore, the heir is not bound by his predecessor's permission.