A corporation manufactured a patented automatic potato peeler. Subsequently, that corporation’s biggest rival manufactured a similar potato peeler. Both are corporations of the same state. The state has a unique statute authorizing quadruple damages for unfair business competition relating to potatoes; however, there is considerable debate whether the law is constitutional under the state constitution. The corporation holding the patent sued its rival in federal court, alleging that the rival corporation violated its patent and the unfair business law. Shortly after the pretrial meeting of the parties required under the Federal Rules, the two companies reached a settlement of the patent infringement claim.  May the court dismiss the remaining claim?

A buyer bought a home from a real estate developer for $700,000. The buyer paid $100,000 of the purchase price herself. The buyer’s employer provided $100,000 of the purchase price by giving the buyer a loan and taking a mortgage. The developer loaned $500,000 to the buyer to finance the remainder of the purchase price, and in return took a mortgage on the property. One week later, a bank obtained a judgment against the buyer for a delinquent credit card balance. The bank properly recorded its judgment as a lien against the property. Another month after that, the buyer incurred some extraordinary medical expenses, and asked the employer for another $100,000, which the employer provided and added onto the principal balance the buyer owed on the loan. Finally, six months later, the buyer asked the developer to change the terms of the loan, so that the buyer would have more time to pay. The developer and the buyer agreed that the buyer could have an additional five years to pay the balance of the loan in exchange for an increase in the principal of the loan. Shortly thereafter, the buyer lost his job and defaulted on all of his payments. The employer brought an action to foreclose its mortgage. All mortgages and liens were promptly and properly recorded.  Regarding the distribution of the proceeds of an eventual sheriff’s sale of the property, which of the following statements is true?

A pedestrian was injured in an auto accident caused by a driver. The pedestrian’s injuries included a broken nose and a broken toe. Not sure of the strength of her case, she sued the driver only for the injuries to her nose. She was awarded $15,000 in damages. Encouraged by this success, she now wishes to sue the driver for the injuries to her toe.  May she sue the driver again?

A grantor executed a valid deed conveying a tract of land to a city “for the purpose of constructing a planetarium thereon.” The city held the property for a number of years, but decided on another site for the planetarium. When presented an offer to purchase the property by a privately owned garbage collection company, the city accepted and conveyed the land to the company.  Which of the following statements about the title of the tract of land is true?

A bookie testified before a grand jury regarding allegedly illegal gambling activities. As a result, the bookie was indicted and a warrant was issued for the bookie’s arrest, along with a search warrant for the bookie’s home. The police went to the bookie’s home, informed him of the charges against him, and placed him in handcuffs. The officers then conducted a search of the bookie’s home and found a desk calendar, which had possibly incriminating information written on it relating to appointments. They seized the desk calendar and one of the officers asked the bookie what he had to say about their find. The bookie made an incriminating statement in response. Before trial, the prosecutor obtained an exemplar of the bookie’s handwriting to compare it with the handwriting on the calendar.  If introduced at trial, which of the following would most clearly violate the bookie’s Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights?

A gang member threatened to kill the defendant unless he robbed a convenience store and gave the proceeds to the gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that the defendant kill the clerk to prevent identification. In abject fear of his life, the defendant did everything that the gang member requested.  If the defendant is arrested and charged with murder and robbery in a common law jurisdiction, what result?

A seller owned a two-acre tract of land, on which he built a single-family residence. The seller entered into a contract to sell the land to a buyer for $200,000. One week before closing, the buyer had a survey of the property conducted. It revealed that a portion of the seller’s house was 5.98 feet from the sideline. The applicable zoning ordinance requires a six-foot sideline setback. The buyer refused to go ahead with the purchase of the land on the ground that the seller’s title was not marketable.  If the seller brings suit against the buyer for specific performance, will he prevail?

A buyer entered into a contract with a seller to buy a parcel of land for $40,000. Although the buyer was expecting to receive a large inheritance in a few weeks, he had very limited funds on hand and was able to personally finance only $10,000. To cover the remaining balance, the buyer obtained a loan from the seller for $30,000, giving the seller a nonnegotiable promissory note in that amount secured by a mortgage on the land and orally promising to pay the seller in full when he received his inheritance money. A few weeks later, the seller transferred possession of the mortgage note to an investor for $25,000 without informing the buyer. The next day, the seller received a check from the buyer in the amount of $30,000. A few days later, the seller left the country with the $65,000 she had made on the sale of the land.  Which of the following correctly states the investor’s rights against the buyer?

A student and her boyfriend were going away to college and had quite a few personal belongings to transport. The student drove in her car while her father and her boyfriend rode in the father’s van. About halfway to the college, while the van and the car were driving down the freeway, the van suddenly swerved out of control and ran off the highway, ending up on its side in the center divider. When the student ran to the van, she discovered to her horror that her father was dead, and her boyfriend appeared to be injured, but not severely. Because her father previously had heart trouble, the student assumed that he had had a heart attack while driving. Filled with remorse, the student told her boyfriend, “I’m so sorry about this. I’ll make good any losses you suffer because of this accident.” The boyfriend learned that he had suffered an injury to his spinal column that would prevent him from ever playing basketball again. He had been a scholarship athlete in basketball at the college and was considered to be a certain high draft selection for a professional basketball league when he graduated. The boyfriend brought an action against the student for several million dollars in damages. A subsequent investigation revealed that the accident was caused solely by a defect in the steering mechanism of the van.  Which of the following is the best defense the student could assert against her boyfriend’s claim?

On December 6, the owner of an electronics store sent a written request to a computer manufacturer asking for the price of a certain laptop computer. The manufacturer sent a written reply with a catalog listing the prices and descriptions of all of his available computers. The letter stated that the terms of sale were cash within 30 days of delivery. On December 14, by return letter, the store owner ordered the computer, enclosing a check for $4,000, the listed price. Immediately on receipt of the order and check, the manufacturer informed the store owner that there had been a pricing mistake in the catalog, which should have quoted the price as $4,300 for that computer. The store owner refused to pay the additional $300, arguing that his order of December 14 in which the $4,000 check was enclosed was a proper acceptance of the manufacturer’s offer.  In a suit for damages, will the manufacturer prevail?