Patrick (P) lives in Tustin, CA and has decided to purchase a motorcycle from David (D).  After talking on the phone, they agree to a purchase price of $10,000.  Since Patrick has never driven a motorcycle, David agrees to provide Patrick with 2 lessons as part of the contract.  Patrick asks David to “test drive” the motorcycle before taking possession or providing payment.  During the test drive, Patrick notices a steady stream of oil leaking from the motorcycle.  Patrick tells David he will not pay him until this is fixed.  Patrick gets so excited about the purchase, he goes to a store and buys a new helmet, an expensive jacket, and new leather boots to wear while riding it.  He believes the motorcycle will be perfect once it is fixed. The next day, David receives an offer for his motorcycle from another buyer for $15,000 as is.  David accepts this offer and delivers the motorcycle to the second buyer. Questions: Is there a legally enforceable contract between Patrick and David? Which law applies? Are there any defenses available to David? What, if any remedies are available?

In May 1995, Mario purchased a two-story building used for a take-out only pizza shop on the first floor and three apartment units on the second floor. These uses were permitted under city’s original zoning ordinance and map, enacted in 1929, but not under the zoning changes enacted in 1989. On June 5, 1995, approximately one month after Mario purchased the subject property, Mario applied for and was issued a certificate of occupancy by the city building inspector, approving the use of the premises as a pizza shop and three apartment units.Starting on December 31, 1995, Mario made numerous improvements to the pizza shop including installation of new kitchen equipment, appliances, lighting fixtures, counterspace, and eat-in seating. Mario spent more than $85,000 for these building improvements.On May 15, 1996, the city building inspector inspected the premises, and shortly thereafter, the city revoked Mario’s certificate of occupancy. Mario appealed the revocation of the certificate of occupancy to the zoning board of adjustment, and the board held a hearing on June 21, 1996.Mario sought judgment against the city compelling reissuance of the certificate of occupancy. Will Mario be successful?

Tolerance and withdrawal are necessary and sufficient for a diagnosis of substance use disorder

Notice: DO NOT CLICK PAST THIS QUESTION UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED TESTING IN EXAMPLIFY!   Read all instructions before moving ahead. 1. A white board is permitted on your exam.  Show the blank white board now to the screen. 2. Please navigate to Examplify at this time. You cannot copy/paste the password.  You will need to split your screen to enter the password in Examplify. Do not share the password with anyone!  Your exam password is: MAkeupexaM3 3. Do NOT close this window until you have completed your Examplify test and uploaded it successfully (green check mark)! 4. Remember to return to Canvas after you’ve completed your assessment to submit this quiz. Submitting this quiz will end proctoring session and stop the recording. Any exam submitted that does not also have a complete recording session in Canvas will be assigned a grade of zero.   For any technical assistance, please contact Honorlock support thru the livechat at the bottom right of this page or by calling (855) 828-4004.   DO NOT GO PAST THIS QUESTION – LEAVE THIS QUESTION OPEN TO TEST!!!

Lucy and Nora, her neighbor, owned adjoining tracts of land. No public road abutted Nora’s land, so Lucy granted Nora an express easement over the north twenty-five feet of Lucy’s land. However, the following month the county extended the public road to Nora’s land, and Nora ceased using the easement for ingress and egress.Twenty years later, Nora conveyed the easement to her friend, who owned the land adjoining the other side of Lucy. The following year, Nora conveyed her land to Lucy. None of the parties has used the easement since the public road was extended. The jurisdiction has a fifteen-year statute of limitations for acquiring property interests by adverse possession.Was the easement extinguished?

Darien, a developer, and Ian, an investor, had been in the real estate business for many years. Because of their long-standing relationship, Darien and Ian often dispensed with certain legal formalities when dealing with each other. Ian owned a parcel of land in which Darien was interested, and he offered to buy it from him for $50,000. Ian accepted Darien’s offer, and the parties agreed on June 15 as the closing date. Darien handed Ian a check for $2,500 with “earnest money” written in the memo, and they shook hands on their deal.A few weeks before closing, Darien called Ian and told him he had changed his mind about purchasing the land because of a sudden economic downturn in the area. Ian appeared at Darien’s office on June 15 with the deed to the land in his hand. Darien refused to tender the balance due, and Ian sued Darien for specific performance.Will Ian prevail?

Luke, a landowner, sustained injuries in a boating accident that required an extended hospital stay. During his absence, Tony, a trespasser, entered into a contract with Ace, an accountant, to purchase Luke’s land. Tony forged Luke’s signature on a quitclaim deed, which Ace promptly and properly recorded. Two months later, Ace received notice that he was being transferred, so he conveyed the land to Bob, a buyer, by a general warranty deed. Bob promptly and properly recorded the deed. The following month, Luke returned to his land and ejected Bob. The jurisdiction in which the land is located has the following statute: “No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice unless the conveyance is recorded.”Under which of the following theories is Bob most likely to have a remedy?

Again, under the fact pattern in number 23 above, which of the following would best describe the duty of care owed by Bob to Don?

Victor, a vendor, and Pauline, a purchaser, entered into a contract for the sale of a half-acre parcel of rural land. The property contained a residence and a barn that was located in the back section of the property. Pauline needed the barn so that she could house her two horses.The contract contained no contingencies and was silent as to risk of loss. Victor carried fire and casualty insurance, which was in effect during this period. Pauline had no insurance on the property.Two weeks before closing, a fire of unknown origin started in the barn and burned it to the ground. The residence was unharmed by the blaze.Pauline decided to cancel the contract since she had nowhere to keep her horses. Victor countered that the risk of fire loss was on Pauline. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction.If Victor brings an action for specific performance of the sales contract, what will be the likely result?

Samantha contracted to convey her property to Barbara for $75,000. A title search revealed the following: (i) There were twenty-five years left on a lease of the property, which was recorded. Barbara agreed to take title subject to the lease but was not aware that the lease gave the lessee, his heirs, and assigns an option to purchase the land. (ii) The roof of the garage on the property extended approximately half an inch across the property line into the airspace of an adjoining neighbor. The garage did not interfere with any current or future use of the adjoining lot. (iii) The home on the property was subject to a $5,000-lien arising from a dispute involving some remodeling work. Samantha promised to pay off the lien at closing with the proceeds from the sale. (iv) The property was subject to an easement by necessity in favor of the adjoining neighbor. Last month, the city extended the main road to the neighbor’s land, but the neighbor planned to continue to use the easement because it was more convenient.In a jurisdiction that has a standard race-notice recording statute, which encumbrance renders Samantha’s title unmarketable?