Which of the following scenarios WOULD MOST LIKELY result in strict liability in tort being found?

III. MULTIPLE CHOICE(Max. 30 points)
This section contains 10 multiple choice questions. Choose the response for each question that is most accurate and write its corresponding letter in the space provided. Each correct response in this section is worth three (3) points.
1. ________. Which of the following IS NOT an intentional tort?
A. Assault
B. Infliction of Emotional Distress
C. Negligent misrepresentation
D. False Imprisonment
2. ________. Which of the following scenarios WOULD MOST LIKELY result in strict liability in tort being found?
A. Plaintiff injured when Defendant driver speeds through a red light.
B. Neighbor injured when a pet tiger gets free from its chains and bites neighbor.
C. Adult injured when the horse he is riding at the for-profit stable is spooked by a noise, bucks and throws the rider off.
D. All of the above would likely result in strict liability in tort being found.
3. ________. Typically, a jury will award ____________ damages in negligence and breach of contract cases but in extraordinary situations involving bad-faith breach of contract or intentional torts may also award ___________ damages.
A. Compensatory / Punitive
B. Liquidated / Treble
C. Punitive / Treble
D. Compensatory / Treble
4. ________. In a negligence case, the Plaintiff must prove all of these elements in order to be successful:
A. Mutual Assent, Duty, Lack of Consideration & Damages
B. Privity, Duty, Breach of Duty & Damages
C. Duty, Breach of Duty, Proximate Cause & Damages
D. Intention to Harm, Actual Harm & Damages
5. ________. In a hurry to get to a party that he was running late for, James stopped at Shop-Quick to pick up a few last-minute things for the party. As he ran down the junk food aisle looking for nachos and pretzels, he slipped and fell on a puddle of salsa sauce that had spilled and had not yet been cleaned up. When James sues Shop-Quick for his injuries, he should be concerned about all of the following defenses except_______________________?
A. Contributory Negligence
B. Comparative Negligence
C. Mutual Mistake
D. Assumption of Risk
6. ________. Which is true of the “objective reasonable person” standard?
A. The standard is used in negligence cases but not in contract disputes.
B. The standard is used in contract disputes but not in negligence cases.
C. The standard is used in both contract disputes and negligence cases.
D. The subjective intent of the parties governs in contract disputes and negligence cases.
7. ________. Fred had great difficulty accepting Sara’s decision to break off their engagement. Sara was Fred’s high school sweetheart and the couple had dated off and on since their grammar school days. Fred now wonders if he is entitled to the engagement ring back. If Fred sued, what would most likely be the result?
A. Sara would be permitted to keep the ring because it was a conditional gift.
B. Sara would be permitted to keep the ring because it was given in consideration of the love she and Fred had for many years.
C. Fred would be entitled to the ring’s value or its return as a matter of equity because the ring unjustly enriched her at Fred’s expense.
D. Fred would be entitled to the ring’s value or its return as a matter of law because Sara breached her promise to marry and the ring was a conditional gift.
8. ________. As the years passed and Fred saw his neighbor dating another guy after their broken engagement, he began to spy on Sara and her new boyfriend by looking over the fence between their properties on numerous occasions into Sara’s bedroom. Fred also left numerous harassing phone messages and on two occasions threatened to harm Sara and on her boyfriend if she didn’t reconsider his marriage proposal again. Sara became frightened and her anxiety was aggravated causing her to resume treatments with her therapist. She now comes to you and asks if she can sue Fred for anything in this scenario. Your best advice should be _____?
A. Yes, because Fred breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing to Sara.
B. Yes, because Fred committed the torts of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
C. Yes, because Fred committed the torts of assault and battery.
D. No, because Fred is psychologically imbalanced and lacks the required intent necessary to commit any of tort actions identified in responses A, B and C above.
9. ________. Egan, a minor, contracted with Joe’s Computer Service to purchase a refurbished computer “as is” for $500.00. Joe’s Computer Service operated out of a back room of his parent’s warehouse in a portion of the town zoned solely for Industrial and Warehouse use. The deal concluded between Egan and Joe’s Computer required a downpayment of $250 from Egan to take delivery of the computer and a final payment of $250 within thirty days. On the 20th day after Egan paid the initial payment and took delivery, the computer was seriously damaged. Five days after the damage occurred and one day after Egan reached the age of majority, Egan returned the computer and disaffirmed the contract. Joe’s Computer sues Egan for the remaining $250 payment. What will the likely result be?
A. Joe wins because Egan breached their deal, partial payment constituted partial performance, Egan was unjustly enriched and equity demands the result in the interests of justice.
B. Joe loses because his failure to comply with the town’s zoning laws disqualifies him from having any right to enforce a valid contract.
C. Joe loses because the computer was seriously defective.
D. Joe loses because Egan lacked the requisite contractual intent and properly disaffirmed within a reasonable time of reaching majority age.
E. Both B and D are correct.
10. _______. Brown wanted to acquire a franchise from the Dunkin’ Donuts Corp. (“DDC”) and establish one in Newark on Broad Street. The location he chose was properly zoned for commercial purposes in general and drive-through restaurants, including fast food and bakery products, in particular. Brown lived in California and wanted to return to the East Coast after 10 years on the West Coast. An agent of DDC informed Brown that if he relocated, acquired the property he had in mind and paid the $20,000 franchise fee, he would be given a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise. In reliance on the agent’s promise, Brown quit his job in California, relocated to northern New Jersey, acquired the land and submitted his formal franchise request along with the required fee to DDC. Brown received no response and after waiting two months, sued DDC. In response to the suit, DDC asserted that there was no promise supported by valid consideration and no binding contract to give him a franchise. Will Brown prevail at trial?
A. Brown will prevail because of the doctrine of promissory estoppel since he reasonably relied upon DDC’s promise and substantially performed his part of the bargain in good-faith.
B. Brown will prevail because his agreement with DDC was voidable in light of DDC’s intentional misrepresentations concerning material terms.
C. DDC will prevail because no express contract with valid consideration existed.
D. DDC will prevail because the agent’s statement that Brown would be given a franchise exceeded the agent’s corporate authority and could not bind DDC as a result.

Place New Order
It's Free, Fast & Safe

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!

Feeling Lucky?

Enter your email address to spin the wheel for a chance to win exciting offers.