On February 1, the general manager of Lane’s Lanes, read in a magazine an ad from Balls for Bowling, a major manufacturer of bowling balls, offering sets of 40 balls in various weights and drilled in various sizes for $10 per ball. Lane’s Lanes immediately filled out the order form included in the ad for the 40 balls and deposited it, properly stamped and addressed, into the mail. On February 2, Lane’s Lanes received in the mail a letter from Balls for Bowling, sent out as part of its advertising campaign, stating in relevant part that it will sell Lane’s Lanes 40 bowling balls at $10 per ball. A day later, on February 3, Balls for Bowling received Lane’s Lanes’s order. On February 4, the balls were shipped. On what day did an enforceable contract arise?

Sasha borrowed $10,000 from Morgan to finance a small construction job under a contract with Esther, a homeowner. Sasha gave Morgan a writing that stated, “Any money I receive from Esther will be paid immediately to Morgan, regardless of any demands from other creditors.” Sasha died after completing the job but before Esther paid. Morgan demanded that Esther pay the $10,000 due to Sasha directly to Morgan. Esther refused, saying that she would pay directly to Sasha’s estate everything that she owed Sasha.Is Morgan likely to succeed in an action against Esther for $10,000?

Fifteen years ago, Noah executed his will, devising his home “to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of thirty years; but if any child dies under the age of thirty years survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of thirty years.”At the date of writing his will, Noah was married to an actress, Annie, and they had two adult daughters. Annie died ten years ago, and Noah married a dancer, Deborah, two years later. At his death last year, Noah was survived by Deborah and three children. Two of the children were daughters from his marriage to Annie. One of the children, a six-year-old son, was Noah’s child by Deborah. The jurisdiction recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute. What is the result of the application of the Rule?

In her properly executed will, Leilani devised land “to my husband for life, remainder to my daughter’s children.” At the time of writing the will, Leilani had a husband (Harrison), a daughter (Deidre), and a son (Steven). When Leilani died and the will was duly admitted to probate, her will contained no residuary clause, and she was survived by Harrison, Deidre, Steven, and Deidre’s child. Harrison died intestate a few years later, survived by only Deidre and Steven, and their children. By the time Harrison died, Deidre had one more child. A year after Harrison’s death, Deidre had yet another child. Who now owns the land?

Sally placed a rare ceramic figurine in her purse. She intended to have the figurine appraised by an art dealer before selling it. Before going to the art dealer’s shop, however, she was scheduled to meet her friends at the park for a picnic. She took the purse with her to the park. When she arrived, she found all her friends playing soccer, except Susan. Sally asked Susan to hold her purse while she joined the game. Susan replied, “Leave your purse here on the blanket. I’ll keep an eye on it.” Sally then put the purse down and played soccer with her friends. Which of the following correctly states Susan’s legal relationship with Sally concerning the purse and the figurine?

Fran and Tim both owned tracts of land adjacent to a river in a jurisdiction that followed the prior appropriation doctrine. Fran’s tract was upstream from Tim’s tract. During a drought, not enough water reached Tim’s land to meet his needs. Tim filed an action against Fran in trespass and conversion. Which of the following would be legitimate grounds for Tim’s claims?

Gigi conveyed a tract of land to her two friends, Sam and Silas, “as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.” Sam and Silas were not related. Sam conveyed all of his interest to his daughter, Donna, and Sam subsequently died intestate. Then Silas conveyed to his grandson, Gerry. Who holds title to the land?

Miles owned a tract of land in fee simple. Fifteen years ago, Miles built a barn on five acres that he believed were part of his property. One year later, Miles discovered that the five acres on which he had built his barn were not part of his property. The five acres actually belonged to Blake, who owned the adjoining property. The year following the discovery that the five acres belonged to Blake next door, Blake died, leaving all of her property to her one-year-old daughter, Ines. Miles has brought a quiet title action against the now fourteen-year-old Ines. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is ten years. Miles has not paid any additional property taxes to account for the five acres for any of the past fifteen years. Who will prevail?

Wendy and her husband, Harold, owned a property as tenants by the entirety. Harold agreed to sell the property to a purchaser. At closing, Harold brought his sister, Samantha, and introduced her as his wife. Harold signed a deed to the purchaser. Samantha signed Wendy’s name to the deed. The purchaser, who did not know that Samantha was not Harold’s wife, paid valid consideration to Harold. If Wendy brings an appropriate action to challenge the title of the purchaser, what is the most likely state of the title?

Questions 13–14 are based on the following. Francis was walking home from work when he spied a coin wedged in a storm drain next to the public sidewalk. He retrieved it. Its weight and color led him to believe that the coin might be made of gold. Its inscription and shape led him to believe that it might be very old. The next day, he took the coin to the shop of a coin expert, Clarence, to solicit Clarence’s opinion about the nature and value of the coin. Clarence told Francis he would perform a valuation of the coin if Francis would pay him $15, but that he would need to hold the coin to perform the valuation. Francis agreed, paid the $15, and left the coin with Clarence. The next day, Francis returned to Clarence’s shop to regain possession of the coin and to obtain Clarence’s opinion about its value. Clarence informed him that he no longer had the coin, because one of Clarence’s employees mistakenly delivered it to another customer. When Francis left the coin with Clarence, did Clarence obtain a property right in the coin?