Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Objective Feasibility Analysis

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Objective Feasibility AnalysisQuestion 1 of 20

Your client was injured when a new toaster oven malfunctioned and caused a fire. The client suffered minor burns and $2,000 in property damage. The client's stated objectives are: (1) to sue the manufacturer for $5 million in punitive damages to 'send a message'; (2) to obtain a nationwide injunction forcing the manufacturer to recall the toaster oven model; and (3) to have the entire matter resolved and money paid within 60 days.

Which statement most accurately explains the legal realities affecting your client's objectives? Select one.

All objectives are feasible, as product liability cases often result in large punitive damage awards and quick settlements to avoid negative publicity for the manufacturer.

A claim for compensatory damages is strong, but a large punitive damage award is unlikely without showing egregious conduct, and a private litigant is unlikely to obtain a nationwide injunction.

The client can likely obtain the nationwide injunction through a preliminary hearing, but the monetary claim will take years to litigate, and punitive damages are not available in strict liability actions.

The client's best strategy is to seek a quick settlement for compensatory damages, as filing a lawsuit will preclude any possibility of a punitive damages award or injunctive relief.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Objective Feasibility Analysis

Practice Objective Feasibility 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 Objective Feasibility 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

Which statement most accurately explains the legal realities affecting your client's objectives? Select one.

All objectives are feasible, as product liability cases often result in large punitive damage awards and quick settlements to avoid negative publicity for the manufacturer.
A claim for compensatory damages is strong, but a large punitive damage award is unlikely without showing egregious conduct, and a private litigant is unlikely to obtain a nationwide injunction. (correct answer)
The client can likely obtain the nationwide injunction through a preliminary hearing, but the monetary claim will take years to litigate, and punitive damages are not available in strict liability actions.
The client's best strategy is to seek a quick settlement for compensatory damages, as filing a lawsuit will preclude any possibility of a punitive damages award or injunctive relief.

Explanation: This is the most accurate assessment. The client has a good claim for compensatory damages ($2,000 plus for the burns). However, punitive damages require more than simple negligence or a defect; they typically require showing the manufacturer acted with malice or reckless disregard for safety, which is a high bar. A private individual is generally not in a position to obtain a nationwide injunction, which is typically handled by regulatory agencies like the CPSC. The 60-day timeline is also highly unrealistic for litigation. Distractor A is overly optimistic and legally imprecise. Distractor C is incorrect because punitive damages can be available in product liability cases, and a court is very unlikely to grant such a broad injunction to a private litigant. Distractor D incorrectly suggests that filing a lawsuit precludes punitive damages; they are requested within the suit.

Question 2

A city council passed a new zoning ordinance that re-zoned a large parcel of your client's undeveloped land from 'commercial' to 'conservation,' significantly reducing its market value. The client has not attempted to develop the land. The client's objectives are: (1) to have a court invalidate the zoning ordinance as an unconstitutional 'taking'; (2) to receive monetary compensation from the city for the diminution in the land's value; and (3) to sue the city council members personally for damages for violating their property rights.

Which of the following presents the most accurate legal analysis of the client's objectives? Select one.

The client has a strong claim for a regulatory taking and can likely achieve both invalidation of the ordinance and compensation, as well as sue the council members for their actions.
The client can likely sue the council members personally under federal civil rights statutes, which is the most direct path to recovering the lost value of the land.
The client's taking claim is likely not ripe because they have not been denied a permit to build, and council members generally have absolute immunity for their legislative acts. (correct answer)
The client can force the city to condemn the property through inverse condemnation and pay full market value, but cannot sue the council members due to sovereign immunity.

Explanation: This answer correctly identifies the major legal hurdles. A regulatory taking claim is generally not ripe until the property owner has sought and been denied a permit or variance under the new ordinance, demonstrating a concrete injury. Thus, the goal of immediate invalidation or compensation is premature. Furthermore, local legislators are typically entitled to absolute immunity from personal liability for their legislative acts, such as voting on a zoning ordinance. Distractor A is incorrect because the claim is not ripe and legislative immunity applies. Distractor B is incorrect because legislative immunity is a strong defense against personal liability. Distractor D is incorrect because the claim is not ripe, and the relevant immunity for the council members is legislative immunity, not sovereign immunity, which protects the governmental entity itself.

Question 3

Your client, a small retailer, ordered 100 custom-printed shirts from a supplier for $2,000, governed by the UCC. Upon delivery, the client discovered that the printing was noticeably off-center on all the shirts, making them unsellable. The client has three objectives: (1) to return all the shirts and get an immediate refund of the $2,000; (2) to cancel the contract entirely; and (3) to recover $3,000 in lost profits from a planned resale of the shirts at a special event next week.

Which of the following most accurately advises the client on the feasibility of their objectives? Select one.

The client must accept the shirts but can sue for damages equal to the difference in value between the shirts as delivered and as promised.
The client can reject the entire shipment and cancel the contract due to the non-conformity, and can likely recover lost profits if the supplier knew of the planned resale. (correct answer)
The client can reject the shipment, but the supplier has an absolute right to cure the defect by providing a new batch of shirts before the event date.
The client can cancel the contract and get a refund, but under the UCC, consequential damages like lost profits are never recoverable for a seller's breach.

Explanation: This answer is the most accurate. Under the UCC's perfect tender rule, the buyer can reject the goods for any non-conformity. Since the defect is material ('unsellable'), the buyer can also cancel the entire contract. Consequential damages, such as lost profits, are recoverable under UCC § 2-715 if they were reasonably foreseeable to the seller at the time of contracting. Distractor A is incorrect because the buyer is not required to accept materially non-conforming goods. Distractor C is incorrect because the seller's right to cure is not absolute; it is subject to time constraints and other reasonableness factors. If the cure cannot be made before the event, the right may be ineffective. Distractor D is incorrect because the UCC expressly allows for the recovery of foreseeable consequential damages.

Question 4

Your client made an oral agreement with a company to provide exclusive consulting services for a period of two years for a total fee of $150,000. One month into the project, the company terminated the relationship. The client's objectives are: (1) to sue the company to enforce the two-year oral agreement; (2) to recover the full remaining $145,000 contract price as damages; and (3) to obtain an injunction for specific performance, forcing the company to continue using his services.

Which of the following provides the most accurate legal assessment of the client's objectives? Select one.

The agreement is likely unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, but the client may recover in quantum meruit for the value of the work already performed. (correct answer)
The oral agreement is fully enforceable, allowing the client to recover the full contract price and obtain specific performance because the services are unique.
The client can enforce the contract for one year but not two, and can recover one year's worth of fees as damages.
The client can recover the full $145,000 as expectation damages, but courts will not grant specific performance for a personal services contract.

Explanation: When you encounter a contract question involving duration and monetary amounts, immediately consider the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. The Statute of Frauds applies to contracts that cannot be performed within one year from formation. Here, a two-year consulting agreement clearly falls within this rule, making the oral agreement unenforceable. However, this doesn't leave your client empty-handed. Under the doctrine of quantum meruit ("as much as deserved"), he can recover the reasonable value of services already performed during that first month, preventing the company from being unjustly enriched. Looking at the wrong answers: Answer B incorrectly assumes the oral agreement is fully enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds violation. Answer C misunderstands the one-year rule—it's not about enforcing contracts for one year maximum, but about whether the contract could be completed within one year from formation. Since this contract was explicitly for two years, it fails entirely. Answer D assumes the contract is enforceable and focuses only on the specific performance issue, missing the threshold Statute of Frauds problem. Remember this pattern: when you see long-term service contracts (over one year) that are oral, the Statute of Frauds is likely your primary issue. The contract fails, but quantum meruit often provides a fallback remedy for work already performed. Always analyze enforceability before diving into damages or specific performance—you can't recover on an unenforceable contract.

Question 5

Your client was pulled over for speeding. The police officer said he smelled marijuana, ordered your client out of the car, and searched the entire vehicle, including the locked trunk. The officer found a small quantity of illegal narcotics in the trunk. Your client's objectives are: (1) to have the narcotics evidence suppressed because the officer did not have a search warrant; (2) to sue the police officer for civil damages for violating his constitutional rights; and (3) to have the criminal charges dismissed immediately.

Which of the following is the most accurate assessment of the client's objectives? Select one.

The search was clearly illegal without a warrant, so the evidence will be suppressed and the charges will be dismissed, and the officer can be sued for damages.
The officer is protected by qualified immunity from any civil suit, and the evidence is admissible under the 'plain view' doctrine, so none of the client's objectives are attainable.
The client cannot get the evidence suppressed because he was speeding, but he can sue the officer for damages because the search exceeded the scope of a traffic stop.
The automobile exception may justify the warrantless search of the car's passenger compartment if there was probable cause, but extending the search to the locked trunk may be grounds for suppression. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, specifically the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and the scope limitations of vehicle searches during traffic stops. When police conduct a warrantless vehicle search, they need probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Here, the officer's claim that he smelled marijuana could establish probable cause for searching the vehicle. However, the automobile exception has scope limitations - while it may justify searching the passenger compartment, searching a locked trunk requires additional justification or exigent circumstances. The locked nature of the trunk suggests the contraband wasn't in "plain view" and the search may have exceeded reasonable bounds. Answer A is wrong because warrantless searches aren't automatically illegal - several exceptions exist, including the automobile exception. Answer B incorrectly applies both qualified immunity (which has specific requirements) and the plain view doctrine (contraband in a locked trunk isn't in "plain view"). Answer C misunderstands the relationship between the initial traffic violation and search authority - speeding doesn't automatically justify a vehicle search, nor does it prevent suppression motions. Answer D correctly recognizes the nuanced analysis required: the automobile exception might justify searching the passenger area if probable cause existed, but extending to the locked trunk creates potential grounds for partial suppression. Remember that Fourth Amendment questions often involve graduated levels of intrusion. Traffic stops allow limited investigation, but each escalation (ordering out of car, searching passenger area, searching locked containers) requires additional justification. Focus on the scope and boundaries of each exception.

Question 6

Your client is a famous movie star, clearly a public figure. A reputable newspaper published an article that contained a false and embarrassing statement about the client. The newspaper's source was a disgruntled former employee of the client, and the newspaper's editor admits they did not independently verify the source's claim. The client's goals are: (1) to win a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper; (2) to obtain a court order forcing the newspaper to print a retraction; and (3) to recover substantial damages for emotional distress.

Which of the following statements most accurately analyzes the feasibility of the client's goals? Select one.

The client has a strong case for defamation and can likely achieve all goals, as the newspaper's failure to verify constitutes clear negligence.
The client can easily win the defamation suit by proving the statement was false, but damages will be limited to actual financial loss, excluding emotional distress.
The statement is privileged because the client is a public figure, so a defamation suit is barred, but the client can sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress instead.
As a public figure, the client must prove 'actual malice,' and a mere failure to verify may not meet this high standard, making the lawsuit difficult, and courts are reluctant to order retractions. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you see a defamation question involving a public figure, immediately think about the heightened "actual malice" standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. Public figures cannot win defamation cases using ordinary negligence standards that apply to private individuals. Answer D correctly identifies the core legal challenge. As a public figure, your client must prove "actual malice" — that the newspaper either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. While the newspaper failed to verify their source, this negligence alone likely doesn't rise to the reckless disregard standard, which requires more egregious conduct like ignoring obvious red flags or publishing despite serious doubts about truth. Additionally, courts generally refuse to order retractions because such compelled speech raises First Amendment concerns. Answer A incorrectly applies the private figure standard. Mere failure to verify, while negligent, doesn't constitute actual malice for public figures. Answer B makes the same error about the defamation standard and incorrectly states that emotional distress damages are categorically excluded — they're actually included in general damages if defamation is proven. Answer C incorrectly claims the statement is "privileged" because the client is a public figure. Public figure status doesn't create privilege; it just raises the plaintiff's burden of proof. Study tip: Remember the two-tier system in defamation law. Private figures need only prove negligence in most states, while public figures must always prove actual malice. This higher standard makes public figure defamation cases significantly harder to win, regardless of how false or damaging the statement is.

Question 7

A client was in a minor car accident with another driver. The client sued the other driver in small claims court for $3,000 to cover the cost of vehicle repairs and won the case. Six months later, the client has developed a serious back injury that doctors have now definitively linked to the accident. The client's objectives are: (1) to file a new lawsuit in a state trial court for $500,000 for his personal injuries; and (2) to prevent the other driver from using the small claims court judgment to block the new lawsuit.

What is the most accurate advice regarding the client's plan? Select one.

The client can file the new lawsuit because personal injury and property damage are different causes of action that can be litigated separately.
The client can file the new lawsuit, but his recovery will be capped at the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court where the first case was heard.
The doctrine of issue preclusion will apply, but only to the issue of fault for the accident, allowing the client to proceed with the new lawsuit on the issue of damages.
The doctrine of claim preclusion will likely bar the new lawsuit because claims arising from a single transaction should be brought in the same action. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests the doctrine of res judicata, specifically claim preclusion, which prevents parties from relitigating claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence. When you see multiple lawsuits stemming from a single incident, you need to analyze whether all related claims should have been brought together in the first action. The doctrine of claim preclusion will likely bar this new lawsuit because both the property damage and personal injury claims arise from the same car accident. Under modern civil procedure rules, parties must bring all claims arising from a single transaction or occurrence in one lawsuit, even if they involve different types of damages. The client's failure to include the personal injury claim in the original small claims action—whether due to jurisdictional limits, unknown injuries, or strategic choice—doesn't create an exception to this rule. Answer A is incorrect because while personal injury and property damage are technically different causes of action, claim preclusion focuses on whether claims arise from the same underlying transaction, not whether they're legally distinct. Answer B misunderstands how claim preclusion works—if the doctrine applies, it bars the entire new lawsuit rather than just capping damages. Answer C confuses claim preclusion with issue preclusion; since this involves bringing a new claim (not relitigating the same claim), issue preclusion analysis doesn't apply here. Study tip: Remember that claim preclusion is broader than many students expect. It's not just about identical claims—it bars all claims that could and should have been brought in the original action, regardless of damage type or later-discovered injuries.

Question 8

Which of the following most accurately advises the client on the feasibility of their objectives? Select one.

The client must accept the shirts but can sue for damages equal to the difference in value between the shirts as delivered and as promised.
The client can reject the entire shipment and cancel the contract due to the non-conformity, and can likely recover lost profits if the supplier knew of the planned resale. (correct answer)
The client can reject the shipment, but the supplier has an absolute right to cure the defect by providing a new batch of shirts before the event date.
The client can cancel the contract and get a refund, but under the UCC, consequential damages like lost profits are never recoverable for a seller's breach.

Question 9

Your client is on trial for armed robbery. The prosecution's key witness is the client's ex-wife, who divorced him a month before the trial. The client has several objectives for his defense: (1) to prevent his ex-wife from testifying about a private conversation during their marriage where he described his plan to rob the store; (2) to suppress a weapon found in his car based on a search warrant that he believes lacked probable cause; and (3) to have the case dismissed before the jury deliberates if the evidence is suppressed.

Which of the following statements provides the most accurate legal analysis of the client's objectives? Select one.

Spousal immunity will prevent the ex-wife from testifying, and if the weapon is suppressed, the judge must dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
Neither spousal immunity nor marital communications privilege applies after a divorce, but if the warrant is found to be invalid, the case will be automatically dismissed with prejudice.
The marital communications privilege likely protects the conversation, and if the weapon is suppressed via a motion, the client can then move for a judgment of acquittal if the remaining evidence is insufficient. (correct answer)
The ex-wife can be forced to testify about the conversation because it concerned a future crime, but the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the weapon if the warrant was flawed in any way.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of spousal privileges and criminal procedure, particularly the distinction between spousal immunity and marital communications privilege, plus the mechanics of suppression motions and judgments of acquittal. The marital communications privilege protects confidential communications made during marriage, even after divorce. Unlike spousal immunity (which prevents one spouse from being compelled to testify against the other during marriage), this privilege survives divorce and belongs to both spouses. The private conversation about the robbery plan would likely qualify as a privileged marital communication. Additionally, if the search warrant lacked probable cause and the weapon is suppressed, the defendant can file a motion for judgment of acquittal arguing the remaining evidence is insufficient to support conviction. Option A incorrectly conflates spousal immunity with marital communications privilege - immunity ends with divorce, and judges don't automatically dismiss cases when evidence is suppressed. Option B wrongly states that no privileges apply after divorce, missing that marital communications privilege continues post-divorce, and cases aren't automatically dismissed with prejudice when warrants are invalid. Option D contains two errors: the future crime exception doesn't automatically override marital communications privilege (the communication must further an ongoing crime), and the exclusionary rule doesn't require suppression for any warrant flaw - only constitutional violations. Remember this key distinction: spousal immunity ends at divorce, but marital communications privilege survives it. Also, suppression of evidence doesn't automatically end a case - defendants must actively move for judgment of acquittal and prove the remaining evidence is legally insufficient.

Question 10

Which of the following provides the most accurate legal assessment of the client's objectives? Select one.

The agreement is likely unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, but the client may recover in quantum meruit for the value of the work already performed. (correct answer)
The oral agreement is fully enforceable, allowing the client to recover the full contract price and obtain specific performance because the services are unique.
The client can enforce the contract for one year but not two, and can recover one year's worth of fees as damages.
The client can recover the full $145,000 as expectation damages, but courts will not grant specific performance for a personal services contract.

Question 11

Which of the following statements provides the most accurate legal analysis of the client's objectives? Select one.

Spousal immunity will prevent the ex-wife from testifying, and if the weapon is suppressed, the judge must dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
Neither spousal immunity nor marital communications privilege applies after a divorce, but if the warrant is found to be invalid, the case will be automatically dismissed with prejudice.
The marital communications privilege likely protects the conversation, and if the weapon is suppressed via a motion, the client can then move for a judgment of acquittal if the remaining evidence is insufficient. (correct answer)
The ex-wife can be forced to testify about the conversation because it concerned a future crime, but the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the weapon if the warrant was flawed in any way.

Question 12

Your client is a software developer who was hired by a tech company. Her employment agreement states that the company owns all 'inventions and intellectual property created by the employee during the term of employment that relate to the company's business.' While on the job, she developed a new software tool that improves workflow. She now wants to: (1) patent the tool in her own name; (2) quit her job and start a competing business selling the tool; and (3) take the company's confidential client list to market her new business.

Which of the following statements most accurately assesses the client's ability to achieve her objectives? Select one.

The client owns the patent rights because she is the inventor, and she is free to compete and use the client list after her employment ends.
The employment agreement likely assigns ownership of the tool to the company, and taking the client list would likely constitute misappropriation of a trade secret. (correct answer)
The client co-owns the tool with the company and can license it to her new business, but she must first offer to sell her share to the company.
The employment agreement is an unenforceable contract of adhesion, allowing the client to patent the tool, but she will need to pay the company a reasonable royalty.

Explanation: This is the most accurate assessment. The provision in the employment agreement is a common and generally enforceable 'invention assignment clause.' Because the tool relates to the company's business and was created during employment, the company, not the employee, will own the intellectual property, including the right to patent it. A confidential client list is a classic example of a trade secret, and taking it for use in a competing business would be a breach of the duty of loyalty and likely a statutory violation (misappropriation of trade secrets). Distractor A is incorrect on all points. Distractor C incorrectly suggests co-ownership, which is contrary to the typical assignment clause. Distractor D makes a broad, unsupported claim that the agreement is unenforceable; such clauses are standard and usually upheld.

Question 13

Your client is a 10% shareholder in a closely held corporation that operates a successful restaurant. The other 90% is owned by a husband and wife who are the corporation's only directors and officers. There is no shareholder agreement. Your client believes the couple is paying themselves excessively high salaries, thereby reducing the dividends paid to shareholders. The client has three goals: (1) to force the corporation to buy out their shares at a premium price, well above fair market value; (2) to file a lawsuit to recover some of the excessive salaries for the corporation; and (3) to secure a management position at the restaurant.

How should you advise the client regarding the feasibility of these goals? Select one.

The client has a strong basis for a derivative suit to recover excessive salaries, which could lead to a court-ordered buyout at fair market value, but there is no legal right to employment or a premium price. (correct answer)
The business judgment rule protects the directors' decisions regarding their own compensation, making a lawsuit unlikely to succeed and rendering the other objectives unattainable.
The client can demand an immediate buyout at a premium price as a remedy for minority shareholder oppression, and can also sue for a management position as part of the equitable relief.
The client must choose between filing a derivative suit for the corporation's benefit and seeking a direct action for a buyout, as both actions cannot be maintained simultaneously.

Explanation: This answer correctly assesses the client's options. A derivative suit challenging excessive salaries as a breach of the duty of loyalty is a viable claim in a close corporation. If successful, a common remedy for such minority shareholder oppression is a court-ordered buyout, but it would be at fair value, not a premium. There is no legal right to be employed by the corporation. Distractor B is incorrect because the business judgment rule does not protect self-dealing transactions like setting one's own salary, which are subject to a fairness standard. Distractor C is incorrect because while a buyout is a possible remedy, there is no entitlement to a premium price, nor is a court likely to order the corporation to hire the client. Distractor D is incorrect because a plaintiff can often plead both direct and derivative claims in the alternative, and courts frequently treat actions by oppressed minority shareholders in close corporations as direct actions anyway.

Question 14

Your client and a business associate formed a general partnership to operate a consulting firm. The partnership agreement is silent on dissolution and partner duties. The partnership recently lost a major client, and a creditor is demanding payment on a $50,000 loan. Your client wants to: (1) immediately and unilaterally dissolve the partnership; (2) start a new solo consulting firm and take the partnership's most valuable remaining client; and (3) avoid any personal liability for the $50,000 partnership debt.

What is the most accurate advice regarding the client's objectives? Select one.

The client can dissolve the partnership at will, take the client, and will not be liable for the debt as it was a partnership obligation.
The client can dissolve the partnership, but taking the client would be a breach of fiduciary duty, and the client remains personally liable for the pre-dissolution partnership debt. (correct answer)
The client cannot dissolve the partnership without the other partner's consent, but if they do, they are absolved of all prior partnership debts.
To avoid liability for the debt, the client must assign their partnership interest to a third party, which also transfers the right to take partnership clients.

Explanation: This is the most accurate assessment. In a general partnership at will, any partner can dissociate and trigger dissolution at any time. However, fiduciary duties (like the duty of loyalty) continue during the winding-up period. Usurping a partnership opportunity (taking the most valuable client) before the partnership's affairs are settled would be a breach of this duty. Critically, partners are personally, jointly, and severally liable for all partnership obligations, and dissolution does not discharge this pre-existing liability. Distractor A is incorrect about the fiduciary duty and personal liability. Distractor C is incorrect because a partner can unilaterally dissolve a partnership at will. Distractor D is incorrect as assigning a partnership interest only transfers economic rights, not management rights or the ability to dissolve, and it does not eliminate the partner's personal liability for existing debts.

Question 15

What is the most accurate advice regarding the client's plan? Select one.

The client can file the new lawsuit because personal injury and property damage are different causes of action that can be litigated separately.
The client can file the new lawsuit, but his recovery will be capped at the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court where the first case was heard.
The doctrine of issue preclusion will apply, but only to the issue of fault for the accident, allowing the client to proceed with the new lawsuit on the issue of damages.
The doctrine of claim preclusion will likely bar the new lawsuit because claims arising from a single transaction should be brought in the same action. (correct answer)

Question 16

Which of the following is the most accurate assessment of the client's objectives? Select one.

The search was clearly illegal without a warrant, so the evidence will be suppressed and the charges will be dismissed, and the officer can be sued for damages.
The officer is protected by qualified immunity from any civil suit, and the evidence is admissible under the 'plain view' doctrine, so none of the client's objectives are attainable.
The client cannot get the evidence suppressed because he was speeding, but he can sue the officer for damages because the search exceeded the scope of a traffic stop.
The automobile exception may justify the warrantless search of the car's passenger compartment if there was probable cause, but extending the search to the locked trunk may be grounds for suppression. (correct answer)

Question 17

Which of the following presents the most accurate legal analysis of the client's objectives? Select one.

The client has a strong claim for a regulatory taking and can likely achieve both invalidation of the ordinance and compensation, as well as sue the council members for their actions.
The client can likely sue the council members personally under federal civil rights statutes, which is the most direct path to recovering the lost value of the land.
The client's taking claim is likely not ripe because they have not been denied a permit to build, and council members generally have absolute immunity for their legislative acts. (correct answer)
The client can force the city to condemn the property through inverse condemnation and pay full market value, but cannot sue the council members due to sovereign immunity.

Question 18

Your client purchased a lot in a subdivision governed by a restrictive covenant that prohibits any 'commercial or business activity.' The covenant was properly recorded and referenced in the client's deed. The seller's real estate agent only verbally mentioned 'some rules about fences.' The client wants to build a small law office on the property. Her goals are: (1) to proceed with construction, arguing the covenant is invalid; (2) to sue the seller for failing to adequately disclose the covenant's specific terms; and (3) to sue the homeowners' association (HOA) for discrimination if it tries to enforce the covenant against her but not others.

Which of the following statements provides the most accurate legal analysis of the client's objectives? Select one.

The covenant is likely valid and enforceable against the client, a claim against the seller is weak due to constructive notice, and a discrimination claim requires showing selective enforcement based on a protected class. (correct answer)
The covenant is invalid because it was not explicitly spelled out at closing, so the client can build the office and sue the seller for fraudulent misrepresentation.
The client can build the office because the covenant is an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and she has an automatic claim against the HOA for any attempt to enforce it.
The client's best course of action is to sue the seller to rescind the contract, as the seller's failure to disclose constitutes a breach of the warranty of marketable title.

Question 19

You are representing a client who signed a contract to purchase a home for $500,000. The contract included a $25,000 earnest money deposit and a financing contingency that expired 10 days ago. The client has now been denied a mortgage. The client also paid $700 for an independent home inspection. The contract contains a valid liquidated damages clause stating that if the buyer defaults, the seller may retain the earnest money as seller's sole remedy. The client tells you they have three objectives: (1) to terminate the purchase contract, (2) to recover their $25,000 earnest money deposit, and (3) to have the seller reimburse them for the $700 inspection fee.

Which of the following statements most accurately assesses the feasibility of your client's objectives? Select one.

All three objectives are achievable because the client's inability to secure financing makes performance impossible, thus discharging the contract and entitling the client to restitution.
The client can terminate the contract, but they will likely forfeit the earnest money deposit as liquidated damages and will not be able to recover the inspection fee. (correct answer)
The client can terminate the contract and will be entitled to a refund of the earnest money, but the seller will have a counterclaim for actual damages, including the inspection fee.
The client cannot unilaterally terminate the contract, and the seller's most probable remedy is a suit for specific performance to compel the client to purchase the home.

Explanation: The correct answer provides the most accurate analysis of the client's situation. (1) The client can effectively 'terminate' by breaching the contract. (2) Because the financing contingency has expired, the failure to secure a loan constitutes a default. The liquidated damages clause allows the seller to retain the earnest money. (3) The inspection fee was a cost incurred by the client to perform due diligence and is not recoverable from the seller upon the client's breach. Distractor A is incorrect because impossibility does not apply to a failure to secure financing after a contingency period has lapsed. Distractor C is incorrect because the liquidated damages clause makes the deposit the seller's sole remedy, precluding a suit for actual damages, and the client is not entitled to a refund upon default. Distractor D is incorrect because the valid liquidated damages clause specifies the seller's remedy is retaining the deposit, making specific performance unavailable.

Question 20

Which of the following statements most accurately assesses the feasibility of your client's objectives? Select one.

All three objectives are achievable because the client's inability to secure financing makes performance impossible, thus discharging the contract and entitling the client to restitution.
The client can terminate the contract, but they will likely forfeit the earnest money deposit as liquidated damages and will not be able to recover the inspection fee. (correct answer)
The client can terminate the contract and will be entitled to a refund of the earnest money, but the seller will have a counterclaim for actual damages, including the inspection fee.
The client cannot unilaterally terminate the contract, and the seller's most probable remedy is a suit for specific performance to compel the client to purchase the home.