Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Outcome Assessment

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Outcome AssessmentQuestion 1 of 20

In a civil trial for battery, the plaintiff seeks to prove that the defendant initiated the physical altercation. The plaintiff calls a witness to the stand. The witness is prepared to testify that she was at a party a week after the incident and overheard a person, who is now traveling abroad and cannot be contacted, say, "I was there when the fight happened. The defendant totally started it; he threw the first punch for no reason." The defendant's attorney objects to the witness's proposed testimony.

How is the trial court most likely to rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the out-of-court statement is hearsay not within any exception.

Overrule the objection, because the declarant is unavailable and the statement was against the defendant's interest.

Sustain the objection, because the testimony's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 403.

Overrule the objection, because the statement was an excited utterance made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Outcome Assessment

Practice Outcome Assessment 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 Outcome Assessment, 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

How is the trial court most likely to rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the out-of-court statement is hearsay not within any exception. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because the declarant is unavailable and the statement was against the defendant's interest.
Sustain the objection, because the testimony's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 403.
Overrule the objection, because the statement was an excited utterance made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The proposed testimony is a classic example of hearsay: an out-of-court statement (the declarant's comment at the party) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the defendant threw the first punch). For it to be admissible, it must fall within a hearsay exception. B is incorrect because the statement against interest exception (FRE 804(b)(3)) requires the statement to be against the declarant's own pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest. This statement is against the defendant's interest, not the declarant's. C is incorrect because while a Rule 403 analysis is always possible, the primary and dispositive reason for exclusion is the rule against hearsay. D is incorrect because there are no facts to suggest the statement was made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the fight, which had occurred a week earlier. Therefore, the statement is inadmissible hearsay.

Question 2

A manufacturer produces a line of inexpensive table saws. The saws are designed without a flesh-detecting safety feature that would automatically stop the blade upon contact with a user's hand. This technology is available and would add approximately $100 to the cost of each saw, nearly doubling its retail price. A consumer, an experienced woodworker, purchases one of the saws. While using it carefully, he is momentarily distracted and his hand slips into the blade, causing a severe injury. He sues the manufacturer, alleging the saw is defectively designed.

What is the probable outcome of the consumer's design defect claim? Select one.

The manufacturer will prevail, because the danger of an unguarded spinning saw blade is open and obvious to any user.
The manufacturer will prevail, because the consumer was an experienced woodworker who understood the risks involved.
The consumer will prevail, because the manufacturer could have produced a safer product by including the flesh-detecting technology.
The outcome will depend on whether a jury finds that the benefits of the cheaper design outweigh the risks of injury. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. Most jurisdictions apply a risk-utility test to determine if a design is defective. This test balances factors like the gravity and likelihood of potential harm against the cost and feasibility of an alternative design. Here, the alternative design offers a great safety benefit, but it would also double the product's price. A jury would have to weigh whether the utility of a more affordable saw for some consumers outweighs the risk of injury that could be prevented by the more expensive safety feature. This is a classic jury question. A is incorrect because the open and obvious nature of a danger is a factor in the risk-utility analysis but does not automatically bar a design defect claim, especially if a reasonable alternative design exists. B is incorrect for the same reason; the user's experience is a factor but not dispositive. C is too absolute; the mere existence of a safer alternative design does not automatically mean the original design is defective. The costs and benefits must be weighed.

Question 3

A winery entered into a written contract with a high-end restaurant to sell 100 cases of its "2023 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon" for $24,000. The contract specified delivery was to occur on May 1. On that date, the winery's truck arrived with 99 cases of the correct wine and one case of its "2023 Merlot." The delivery driver explained that the winery had unexpectedly run out of the Cabernet. The restaurant's manager immediately inspected the shipment, noticed the discrepancy, and called the winery's owner to reject the entire shipment. The contract was silent regarding the seller's right to cure.

Is the restaurant's rejection of the entire shipment likely to be considered rightful? Select one.

Yes, because under the UCC's perfect tender rule, a buyer may reject the whole shipment if the goods fail in any respect to conform to the contract. (correct answer)
No, because the winery substantially performed its contractual obligations, as the non-conformity was minor.
No, because the winery has an absolute right to cure a non-conforming tender by promptly delivering a conforming case of wine.
No, because the restaurant could only rightfully reject the single non-conforming case of Merlot, not the entire shipment.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This contract is for the sale of goods, so it is governed by UCC Article 2. The UCC applies the perfect tender rule (UCC § 2-601), which allows a buyer in a single-delivery contract to reject all the goods if they are non-conforming in any way. The delivery of the wrong type of wine is a non-conformity, giving the restaurant the right to reject the whole shipment. B is incorrect because the doctrine of substantial performance applies to common law contracts, not UCC contracts for the sale of goods. C is incorrect because a seller's right to cure is not absolute. After the time for performance has expired (here, May 1), the seller only has a right to cure if the seller had reasonable grounds to believe the non-conforming tender would be acceptable (UCC § 2-508); there are no facts to support this. D is incorrect because UCC § 2-601 explicitly gives the buyer the option to reject the whole, accept the whole, or accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest. Thus, rejecting the entire shipment is a valid option.

Question 4

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for negligence arising from a workplace accident. After the close of discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of the motion, the defendant attached a sworn affidavit from its chief executive officer. The affidavit stated that the company had complied with all applicable industry safety standards and that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's own carelessness. In response, the plaintiff's attorney filed a brief arguing that the CEO's credibility is a question for the jury and that the jury might not believe the self-serving statements in the affidavit.

What is the probable outcome of the defendant's motion for summary judgment? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because the credibility of a witness is always a question of fact for the jury to decide.
The motion will be denied, because the defendant, as the moving party, failed to definitively prove the absence of negligence.
The motion will be granted, because the plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts showing a genuine dispute for trial. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the CEO's sworn affidavit is considered conclusive evidence of the company's due care.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, once the moving party shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce admissible evidence creating such a dispute. The plaintiff cannot simply rest on allegations or attack the credibility of the movant's affiant; they must present affirmative evidence. By failing to do so, the plaintiff has not met their burden, and summary judgment is appropriate. A is incorrect because while credibility is a jury question, a party cannot defeat summary judgment by merely asserting that a jury might disbelieve the movant's evidence without producing contrary evidence. B is incorrect because under modern summary judgment standards (Celotex), a movant can meet its initial burden by showing that the non-moving party lacks sufficient evidence to support an essential element of their case; they do not necessarily have to produce evidence negating the claim. D is incorrect because an affidavit is not conclusive evidence; it is merely evidence that, if unrebutted by the opposing party, can support a finding that there is no genuine dispute of fact.

Question 5

A driver negligently failed to stop at a red light and caused a minor collision with another car in an intersection. The collision caused no physical injuries but disabled the second car. A tow truck was called to the scene. While the tow truck operator was attaching the disabled car to his truck, a bolt of lightning from a sudden thunderstorm struck a nearby utility pole. The pole fell, striking the tow truck operator and causing severe injuries. The operator has now sued the negligent driver for damages.

What is the probable outcome of the tow truck operator's claim against the driver? Select one.

The driver will be liable, because his negligence was the actual, but-for cause of the operator's presence at the scene of the accident.
The driver will be liable, because rescuers are always foreseeable plaintiffs, and the tow truck operator was engaged in a rescue operation.
The driver will not be liable, because the tow truck operator contractually assumed the risks inherent in his profession.
The driver will not be liable, because the lightning strike was a superseding cause that was not a foreseeable result of the driver's negligence. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. To be liable for negligence, the defendant's act must be both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Proximate cause is based on foreseeability. Here, being struck by lightning is not a foreseeable consequence of a minor car accident. The lightning strike is an independent, intervening force that is so extraordinary it is considered a superseding cause, breaking the chain of causation between the driver's negligence and the operator's injury. A is incorrect because while the driver's negligence was the but-for (actual) cause, it was not the proximate cause. B is incorrect because even if the operator is a foreseeable plaintiff under the rescuer doctrine, the specific harm that occurred must still be a foreseeable result of the original negligence for proximate cause to exist. C is incorrect because assumption of risk applies to known risks inherent in a situation; a lightning strike is not an ordinary, inherent risk of towing a car that the operator would be deemed to have assumed.

Question 6

How is the trial court most likely to rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the out-of-court statement is hearsay not within any exception. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because the declarant is unavailable and the statement was against the defendant's interest.
Sustain the objection, because the testimony's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 403.
Overrule the objection, because the statement was an excited utterance made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement.

Question 7

A man is the sole shareholder, director, and officer of a small, incorporated moving company. He routinely uses the company's bank account to pay his personal mortgage and credit card bills. He has never held a formal shareholder or director meeting and keeps no corporate records. A company employee, while on a job, negligently drops a priceless vase, causing $100,000 in damages. The company has no assets and its liability insurance policy is limited to $10,000. The owner of the vase has sued the shareholder personally for the remaining $90,000.

Is the court likely to pierce the corporate veil and hold the shareholder personally liable? Select one.

Yes, because the shareholder commingled personal and corporate funds and disregarded corporate formalities, treating the corporation as his alter ego. (correct answer)
No, because as a general rule, shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of a corporation.
No, because the tort was committed by an employee, not the shareholder himself.
Yes, because the corporation was deliberately undercapitalized by carrying only a minimum insurance policy, which constitutes a fraud.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Courts may pierce the corporate veil to hold shareholders personally liable when the corporate form is abused. A key factor is whether the corporation is merely the "alter ego" of the shareholder. Here, the shareholder's complete disregard for corporate formalities (no meetings or records) and his commingling of personal and corporate assets are strong evidence that he did not treat the corporation as a separate entity, justifying piercing the veil. B is incorrect because while it states the general rule of limited liability, it ignores the equitable exception of piercing the veil, which is squarely raised by the facts. C is incorrect because the liability at issue is not direct liability for the tort, but vicarious liability for the corporation's debt arising from the tort, which is imputed to the shareholder when the veil is pierced. D is incorrect because while undercapitalization can be a factor, it is often difficult to prove, especially when the legally required minimum insurance is carried. The alter ego theory is much stronger on these facts.

Question 8

What is the probable outcome of the consumer's design defect claim? Select one.

The manufacturer will prevail, because the danger of an unguarded spinning saw blade is open and obvious to any user.
The manufacturer will prevail, because the consumer was an experienced woodworker who understood the risks involved.
The consumer will prevail, because the manufacturer could have produced a safer product by including the flesh-detecting technology.
The outcome will depend on whether a jury finds that the benefits of the cheaper design outweigh the risks of injury. (correct answer)

Question 9

A driver from State X and a driver from State Y were involved in a car accident in State X. The driver from State X sued the driver from State Y in federal court in State X, properly invoking diversity jurisdiction and seeking $100,000 for her injuries. The driver from State Y believed that the State X driver was at fault and that he had suffered $50,000 in damages, but he did not file a counterclaim in the lawsuit. The case went to trial, and the jury found for the defendant (the driver from State Y). A month later, the driver from State Y sued the driver from State X in federal court in State X for his own $50,000 in damages.

What is the probable outcome of a motion by the State X driver to dismiss the second lawsuit? Select one.

The motion will be granted, because the State Y driver's claim was a compulsory counterclaim in the first lawsuit and is now barred. (correct answer)
The motion will be denied, because the State Y driver's claim for $50,000 did not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal court.
The motion will be denied, because res judicata (claim preclusion) does not bar a claim by a party who was the defendant in the prior action.
The motion will be granted, because the issue of who was negligent was already decided in the first trial, barring the claim under collateral estoppel.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), a counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. A party who fails to plead a compulsory counterclaim is barred from asserting it in a later action. Here, the State Y driver's claim for his own injuries arose from the same car accident and was therefore a compulsory counterclaim. His failure to raise it in the first action bars him from bringing it in a second suit. B is incorrect because the amount-in-controversy requirement does not apply to compulsory counterclaims; the court would have had supplemental jurisdiction. C is incorrect because while claim preclusion generally does not bar claims by a former defendant, the compulsory counterclaim rule is a specific exception to this principle. D is incorrect because while issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) might also bar the suit if the first jury made a specific finding of no negligence by the State X driver, the compulsory counterclaim rule provides a more certain and direct basis for dismissal regardless of the specific jury findings.

Question 10

What is the probable outcome of the defendant's motion for summary judgment? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because the credibility of a witness is always a question of fact for the jury to decide.
The motion will be denied, because the defendant, as the moving party, failed to definitively prove the absence of negligence.
The motion will be granted, because the plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts showing a genuine dispute for trial. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the CEO's sworn affidavit is considered conclusive evidence of the company's due care.

Question 11

What is the probable outcome of the tow truck operator's claim against the driver? Select one.

The driver will be liable, because his negligence was the actual, but-for cause of the operator's presence at the scene of the accident.
The driver will be liable, because rescuers are always foreseeable plaintiffs, and the tow truck operator was engaged in a rescue operation.
The driver will not be liable, because the tow truck operator contractually assumed the risks inherent in his profession.
The driver will not be liable, because the lightning strike was a superseding cause that was not a foreseeable result of the driver's negligence. (correct answer)

Question 12

Is the court likely to pierce the corporate veil and hold the shareholder personally liable? Select one.

Yes, because the shareholder commingled personal and corporate funds and disregarded corporate formalities, treating the corporation as his alter ego. (correct answer)
No, because as a general rule, shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of a corporation.
No, because the tort was committed by an employee, not the shareholder himself.
Yes, because the corporation was deliberately undercapitalized by carrying only a minimum insurance policy, which constitutes a fraud.

Question 13

Is the restaurant's rejection of the entire shipment likely to be considered rightful? Select one.

Yes, because under the UCC's perfect tender rule, a buyer may reject the whole shipment if the goods fail in any respect to conform to the contract. (correct answer)
No, because the winery substantially performed its contractual obligations, as the non-conformity was minor.
No, because the winery has an absolute right to cure a non-conforming tender by promptly delivering a conforming case of wine.
No, because the restaurant could only rightfully reject the single non-conforming case of Merlot, not the entire shipment.

Question 14

A man planned to burn down his own unprofitable warehouse to collect the insurance money. He purchased several gallons of gasoline and drove to the warehouse late at night. He poured the gasoline all around the base of the building. As he was about to light a match, he was startled by the headlights of an approaching police car on a routine patrol. He immediately fled the scene without lighting the fire. He was apprehended a few blocks away. The jurisdiction uses the "substantial step" test for attempt.

Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted arson? Select one.

Yes, because pouring the gasoline was a substantial step that strongly corroborated his criminal purpose. (correct answer)
No, because he did not perform the final act of lighting the match, so his actions were only mere preparation.
No, because there was no actual danger of the building burning down since the police arrived before he could act.
Yes, but only if the prosecution can prove that he would have lit the match if the police had not appeared.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The crime of attempt requires (1) a specific intent to commit the target crime and (2) an overt act in furtherance of that intent. Under the modern "substantial step" test (used by the Model Penal Code and many states), the overt act must be a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime, and it must be strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. Purchasing gasoline might be mere preparation, but bringing it to the scene and pouring it on the building is a classic example of a substantial step. B is incorrect because the substantial step test does not require the defendant to perform the very last act before completion of the crime. C is incorrect because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt; the focus is on the defendant's actions and intent. D is incorrect because the man's intent is judged by his actions up to that point; the crime of attempt was complete once he took the substantial step with the requisite intent.

Question 15

Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted arson? Select one.

Yes, because pouring the gasoline was a substantial step that strongly corroborated his criminal purpose. (correct answer)
No, because he did not perform the final act of lighting the match, so his actions were only mere preparation.
No, because there was no actual danger of the building burning down since the police arrived before he could act.
Yes, but only if the prosecution can prove that he would have lit the match if the police had not appeared.

Question 16

A company that manufactures lawnmowers is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State A. It sells its mowers to an independent, national retail chain headquartered in State B. The retail chain has stores in all 50 states. A consumer bought one of the company's mowers at a retail store in State C and was injured in State C when the mower's blade detached during use. The manufacturer has no offices, employees, or direct sales in State C, but its contract with the retail chain allows for nationwide distribution. The consumer has sued the manufacturer in federal court in State C.

What is the probable outcome of a motion by the manufacturer to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction? Select one.

The motion will be granted, because the manufacturer lacks the minimum contacts with State C necessary for specific jurisdiction.
The motion will be denied, because the manufacturer placed its product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be sold in State C. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because only the retail chain, not the manufacturer, purposefully availed itself of the market in State C.
The motion will be denied, because the manufacturer's extensive nationwide sales give it general personal jurisdiction in every state.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This case involves specific personal jurisdiction based on the stream-of-commerce theory. By entering into a contract with a national retailer, the manufacturer purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in all states where the retailer sold its products, including State C. The manufacturer knew or should have known its mowers would be sold there. The consumer's claim arises out of the manufacturer's contacts with the state (the sale of the mower that caused the injury there). A is incorrect because placing a product into the stream of commerce with the knowledge it will reach the forum state can establish minimum contacts. C is incorrect because it misinterprets the stream-of-commerce doctrine; the manufacturer's act of selling to the national distributor is the act of purposeful availment. D is incorrect because general jurisdiction requires a defendant to be essentially "at home" in the forum state (e.g., state of incorporation or principal place of business). Nationwide sales do not establish general jurisdiction everywhere.

Question 17

For 12 years, a woman has occupied a five-acre parcel of wooded land, believing it was part of her property due to an error in a survey she commissioned. During this time, she built a small cabin, planted a garden, and consistently used the land for recreation. The true owner of the parcel lives in another state and has never visited the property. The jurisdiction's statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. The jurisdiction's courts follow the majority rule regarding the state of mind for hostility. The true owner has recently discovered the woman's presence and filed an action to quiet title and eject her.

What is the probable outcome of the true owner's action? Select one.

The owner will prevail, because the woman's possession was based on a good-faith mistake and therefore was not hostile.
The owner will prevail, because the true owner had no actual knowledge of the woman's possession of the property.
The woman will prevail, because she has acquired title by adverse possession through her use of the property. (correct answer)
The woman will prevail, but only if she can prove that she paid property taxes on the five-acre parcel during her possession.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The woman has met all the common law elements for adverse possession: her possession was (1) actual (building a cabin and garden), (2) exclusive, (3) open and notorious (a reasonable owner would have noticed), (4) continuous for the statutory period (12 years > 10 years), and (5) hostile. Under the majority, objective view, "hostile" simply means possession without the owner's permission, regardless of the possessor's state of mind. Her mistaken belief is irrelevant. A is incorrect because it applies a minority view that requires bad faith or aggressive trespass for hostility; the majority rule is objective. B is incorrect because the "open and notorious" element does not require the true owner's actual knowledge, but rather that the possession is visible enough that a reasonably diligent owner would discover it. D is incorrect because while some state statutes require the payment of property taxes for adverse possession, it is not a universal common law requirement, and the facts do not state it is required in this jurisdiction.

Question 18

A homeowner hired a contractor to build a large addition to her house. Halfway through the project, the contractor's primary lumber supplier went out of business, and the contractor could not afford the higher prices from a new supplier. The homeowner, wanting to ensure her project was finished, called the new supplier and told him over the phone, "If you provide the lumber to the contractor for my house, I promise I'll make sure you get paid." The new supplier, relying on this promise, delivered the lumber. The contractor failed to pay the supplier and then declared bankruptcy. The supplier has now sued the homeowner on her oral promise.

Is the supplier's claim against the homeowner likely to succeed? Select one.

No, because a promise to answer for the debt of another falls within the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing.
Yes, because the main purpose of the homeowner's promise was to benefit her own economic interest. (correct answer)
No, because the supplier's contract was with the contractor, and the homeowner was not in privity of contract.
Yes, because the supplier's delivery of the lumber constitutes full performance that takes the oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. While a promise to answer for the debt of another (a suretyship promise) is generally within the Statute of Frauds, there is an important exception: the "main purpose" or "leading object" rule. This exception applies when the promisor's primary motivation for making the guarantee is to secure some economic advantage for herself. Here, the homeowner's main purpose was not to benefit the contractor, but to ensure the completion of her home addition. Therefore, her oral promise is enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds. A is incorrect because it states the general rule but fails to consider the applicable exception. C is incorrect because the supplier is suing on the separate promise made by the homeowner, not on the original contract with the contractor. D is incorrect because full performance by one party as an exception to the Statute of Frauds typically applies to contracts other than suretyships, like real estate contracts; the main purpose rule is the correct analysis here.

Question 19

A tenant signed a one-year lease for an apartment on the 20th floor of a luxury building. Two months into the lease, the building's only two elevators went out of service. The tenant immediately notified the landlord. For six weeks, the landlord failed to make repairs, citing difficulties in obtaining a specific part. The tenant, who works from home, found the daily climb up and down 20 flights of stairs to walk his dog and get groceries to be an extreme hardship. After six weeks, the tenant sent a certified letter to the landlord stating that the premises were uninhabitable and that he was terminating the lease. The tenant moved out the next day and stopped paying rent. The landlord sued for the remaining rent.

What is the tenant's strongest defense to the landlord's lawsuit? Select one.

The landlord breached the express terms of the lease agreement.
The tenant was constructively evicted by the landlord's failure to repair the elevators. (correct answer)
The doctrine of impossibility excuses the tenant's duty to pay rent, as it was impossible to live in the apartment.
The landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability by failing to provide essential services.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Constructive eviction occurs when a landlord's action or inaction renders the property uninhabitable or substantially interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises. The elements are: (1) substantial interference; (2) tenant gives notice to the landlord; (3) landlord fails to remedy the problem; and (4) tenant vacates the premises within a reasonable time. Here, the lack of elevator service for a 20th-floor apartment for six weeks is a substantial interference, and the tenant followed all required steps. This is the tenant's best defense. D is a plausible but weaker answer. The implied warranty of habitability typically covers conditions that threaten health and safety (e.g., no heat, no water). While a broken elevator is a major problem, it is more directly an interference with use and enjoyment (constructive eviction) than a core habitability issue. A is incorrect as the facts don't state an express term was breached. C is incorrect as impossibility is a contract doctrine not typically applied in this landlord-tenant context.

Question 20

Two friends decided to start a landscaping business. They agreed orally to work together, to split profits 50/50, and to share control over the business's operations. They did not sign a written agreement or file any documents with the state. The first friend, acting alone, purchased a new commercial lawnmower for $10,000 on credit from a supplier, telling the supplier it was for the business. The business failed after only a few months, and the mower was never paid for. The supplier has sued the second friend for the full $10,000.

What is the probable outcome of the supplier's lawsuit against the second friend? Select one.

The supplier will lose, because there was no written partnership agreement.
The supplier will win, because partners in a general partnership are personally liable for partnership debts. (correct answer)
The supplier will lose, because the second friend did not personally approve or authorize the purchase of the mower.
The supplier will win, but only for $5,000, representing the second friend's 50% share of the business.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The two friends formed a general partnership, which is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. No writing or formal filing is required. A key characteristic of a general partnership is that all partners are jointly and severally liable for all obligations of the partnership. The purchase of a lawnmower was an act in the ordinary course of the landscaping business, thus binding the partnership and both partners. A is incorrect because a formal written agreement is not necessary to form a general partnership. C is incorrect because one partner generally has the authority to bind the partnership in the ordinary course of business, making the other partners liable even if they did not personally approve the transaction. D is incorrect because liability is joint and several, meaning the creditor can collect the full amount from any one partner.