u/Inside_Cucumber_8743

A homeowner returned home unexpectedly and found a burglar carrying a television toward the back door. The homeowner shouted at the burglar to stop. The burglar dropped the television and ran out of the house. The homeowner pursued him down the street.

Several blocks away, while the homeowner was still pursuing him, the burglar shoved a pedestrian out of his way. The pedestrian fell into the street and was struck and killed by a passing car.

The burglar is prosecuted for felony murder based on the burglary.

Under the common law, is the burglar guilty of felony murder?

A. No, because the pedestrian was not killed inside the burglarized dwelling.

B. No, because the burglar had abandoned the stolen property before the pedestrian was killed.

C. Yes, because the death occurred while the burglar was fleeing from the burglary and before he had reached a place of temporary safety.

D. Yes, but only if the burglar intended to cause serious bodily harm to the pedestrian.

A seller and a buyer entered into a written contract for the sale of Blackacre. Closing was scheduled for June 1.

On May 25, the buyer discovered that a utility company held a recorded easement allowing it to maintain underground utility lines across one corner of the property. The easement had existed for 20 years and was not mentioned in the contract.

The buyer immediately notified the seller that the buyer would not close because the seller could not deliver marketable title.

Assuming the buyer did not waive the defect, who is most likely to prevail?

A. The seller, because recorded easements never affect marketable title.

B. The seller, because the easement affects only a small portion of the property.

C. The buyer, because an undisclosed easement generally renders title unmarketable at closing.

D. The buyer, but only if the utility company refuses to remove the easement before closing.

I hesitate btw C and D.

D covers the central timing rule, but the style "but only if" is too restrictive and confuses me and it depends on the utility company's conduct.

Any tip ?

A retailer sent a signed letter to a manufacturer stating:

>

The manufacturer received the letter on June 1. On June 10, the retailer mailed a letter revoking the offer. The manufacturer received the revocation on June 13.

Meanwhile, on June 11, before receiving the revocation, the manufacturer mailed a signed letter accepting the offer. The retailer received the acceptance on June 14.

Assume that both parties are merchants and the transaction is governed by Article 2 of the UCC.

Is a contract formed?

A. Yes, because the retailer's signed written assurance created an enforceable firm offer, making the attempted revocation ineffective.

B. Yes, because the manufacturer's acceptance became effective when mailed under the mailbox rule, regardless of the retailer's power to revoke.

C. No, because the retailer revoked the offer before receiving the manufacturer's acceptance.

D. No, because an offer to buy goods cannot become irrevocable unless the offeree gives consideration.

Both A and B seem correct to me. How can I tell which one is right? What tricks can I use to eliminate the wrong answers ?

A defendant pointed a loaded pistol at a store clerk and demanded money. Before the clerk could respond, the defendant heard police sirens outside, panicked, and ran from the store without taking any property.

The jurisdiction follows the common law.

The defendant is most likely guilty of:

(A) Attempted robbery only.

(B) Assault and attempted robbery.

(C) Robbery because force was threatened.

(D) Larceny because he intended to steal.

I chose first. is this correct ?

The answer (B) is confusing me as well

Can the same act of pointing the gun and demanding money also support a separate charge of assault, or is that conduct considered only the force/threat element of the attempted robbery?

Do you have any tips to differentiate between assault v battery

A woman became angry with her coworker during an argument. Standing 20 feet away, she picked up a heavy coffee mug, aimed it at the coworker, and threw it. The coworker saw the mug flying toward him and immediately ducked. The mug missed him completely and shattered against the wall behind him.

The coworker sues the woman.

Which of the following is the strongest claim?

(A) Battery, because the woman intended to cause harmful contact.

(B) Battery, because the coworker feared being struck.

(C) Assault, because the coworker reasonably anticipated imminent harmful contact.

(D) Assault, because the coffee mug actually struck the wall.

I