Multiple Choice
1. Intentional torts occur when:
a. the tortfeasor is found to have intended to invade a protected interest and the tortfeasor knew, or should
have known, of the consequences of the act that resulted in an injury
b. the tortfeasor is found to have intended to invade a protected interest and the tortfeasor could not have
known of the consequences of the act that resulted in an injury
c. the tortfeasor is found to have unintentionally invaded a protected interest and the tortfeasor knew, or should
have known, of the consequences of the act that resulted in an injury
d. the tortfeasor is found to have unintentionally invaded a protected interest and could not have known of the
consequences of the act that resulted in an injury
e. none of the other choices are correct
2. Negligence is:
a. the cause of an intentional tort
b. carelessness in a legal sense
c. failure to file tax returns properly
d. a business term for an accident
e. none of the other choices are correct
3. Businesses can:
a. only be involved in negligence torts
b. only be involved in intentional torts
c. can be involved in both negligence and intentional torts
d. are always the plaintiff in intentional tort cases
e. are always the defendant in negligence court cases
4. Each year about one-half million tort suits are filed. Most are in courts.
a. federal
b. appellate
c. municipal
d. small claims
e. none of the other choices
5. Most tort suits are filed in:
a. state courts
b. federal courts
c. appellate courts
d. small claims courts
e. municipal courts
6. Most tort suits are filed in:
a. municipal courts
b. federal courts
c. appellate courts
d. small claims courts
e. none of the other choices are correct
7. Experts estimate the annual cost of the tort system at:
a. one to two billion dollars
b. ten to twenty billion dollars
c. twenty to forty billion dollars
d. about a quarter trillion dollars
e. no estimates are available
8. Compensation for injured parties accounts for of the total cost of the tort system.
a. about two-thirds
b. less than half
c. more than half
d. about three-fourths
e. over eighty percent
9. Compensation for injured parties accounts for of the total cost of the tort system.
a. about two-thirds
b. over 80%
c. more than half
d. about three-fourths
e. none of the other choices are correct
10. Which of the following is not usually asserted by business about tort awards:
a. they are not costly
b. they are often excessive
c. they make American businesses less competitive
d. the federal government should limit such awards
e. all of the other choices
11. Business organizations lobby Congress to impose federal statutory limits on tort damages because they claim that:
a. many of the awards are excessive
b. many of the awards are unjustified
c. the costs of the awards are making American business less competitive
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
12. When a person suffers an injury due to deliberate deception, there may be a tort of:
a. fraud
b. misrepresentation
c. fraudulent misrepresentation
d. deceit
e. all of the other choices may be correct
13. When a person suffers an injury due to deliberate deception, there may be a tort of:
a. fraud
b. assault
c. battery
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
14. Fraud, misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit are all examples of torts caused by:
a. deliberate deception
b. accidental deception
c. intentional battery
d. premeditated harm
e. tax evasion
15. Which of the following is not needed to establish the tort of intentional misrepresentation:
a. scienter or intent to defraud
b. intent to induce reliance
c. justifiable reliance by the plaintiff on the misrepresentation
d. relationship between the parties
e. all of the other choices are necessary elements to show the tort existed
16. Which of the following is not needed to establish the tort of intentional misrepresentation:
a. scienter or intent to defraud.
b. intent to induce reliance.
c. justifiable reliance by the plaintiff on the misrepresentation.
d. use of force by defendant.
e. all of the other choices are necessary elements to show the tort existed.
17. When false information is intentionally presented as fact there may be a tort of:
a. battery
b. assault
c. intentional misrepresentation
d. unintentional misrepresentation
e. intentional equivocating
18. In a intentional misrepresentation suit, the facts alleged to have been presented falsely:
a. must be material
b. need not be material
c. must not be material
d. must be unrelated
e. need not be related to the injury
19. One element of fraud or intentional misrepresentation is scienter. That means:
a. false information about an important fact was passed on
b. the defendant knew there was false information being passed on
c. the defendant wanted the plaintiff to believe the falsehood
d. there was a relationship between the parties that created a legal obligation
e. the extent of damages caused
20. One element of fraud or intentional misrepresentation is scienter. That means:
a. false information about an important fact was passed on
b. the defendant wanted the plaintiff to believe the falsehood
c. there was a relationship between the parties that created a legal obligation
d. the extent of damages caused
e. none of the other choices
21. Scienter is:
a. the intent to defraud
b. the intent to befriend
c. the lack of intent to defraud
d. the ability to defraud
e. none of the other choices are correct
22. Scienter is:
a. the intent to prosecute
b. the intent to befriend
c. the lack of intent to defraud
d. the ability to defraud
e. none of the other choices are correct
23. The intent to defraud is called:
a. defamation
b. fraudulence
c. scienter
d. dishonesty
e. none of the other choices are correct
24. If the plaintiff in a fraud case was aware that the key information was false, but went ahead with the deal anyway,
then:
a. the damage award will not be as high
b. there is no fraud
c. the defendant will not have to pay damages, but will have to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees
d. the case will go on to a higher court
e. the court’s decision cannot be appealed
25. If a third party observes a fraud:
a. they cannot sue
b. they can sue
c. they can sue, but not recover any damages
d. they can sue on the behalf of the injured party if they split the damage award with the injured party
e. they can sue in some states, but not others
26. The tort of misrepresentation can be based on:
a. negligence or intent
b. negligence, but not intent
c. intent, but not negligence
d. neither intent or negligence; it requires fraud
e. deceit only
27. The tort of misrepresentation can be based on:
a. negligence, but not intent
b. intent, but not negligence
c. neither intent or negligence; it requires fraud
d. deceit only
e. none of the other choices
28. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, the Alaska high
court held that the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against Lightle:
a. failed because Lightle only recommended the purchase of a particular house
b. failed because Lightle obtained no financial gain from the problem that occurred
c. failed because the plaintiff is a sophisticated purchaser who could evaluate the situation
d. was justified because Lightle knowingly passed false information
e. was justified because Lightle used force to make the deal happen
29. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, the Alaska high
court held that the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against Lightle:
a. failed because Lightle only recommended the purchase of a particular house
b. failed because Lightle obtained no financial gain from the problem that occurred
c. failed because the plaintiff is a sophisticated purchaser who could evaluate the situation
d. was justified because Lightle used force to make the deal happen
e. none of the other choices
30. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, the agent was
sued for:
a. defamation
b. warranty breach
c. fraudulent misrepresentation
d. negligent misrepresentation
e. none of the other choices
31. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, the agent was
sued for:
a. defamation
b. breach of warranty
c. negligent misrepresentation
d. conversion
e. none of the other choices
32. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, which of the
following was not an element of fraudulent misrepresentation noted by the Alaska high court:
a. misrepresentation of facts
b. scienter
c. intent to cause economic loss by foreseeable persons
d. the expectation of reliance by others
e. justifiable reliance by others on misinformation
33. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, the Alaska high
court held that the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against Lightle was justified because:
a. Lightle wanted to buy the house and so misled other buyers
b. Lightle failed to tell the sellers that there were offers on the house
c. Lightle made a partial disclosure that failed to reveal facts that “might have affected the recipient‘s conduct
in the transaction in hand.”
d. Lightle made a full disclosure that revealed facts that “might have affected the recipient‘s conduct in the
transaction in hand.”
e. none of the other choices are correct
34. In Lightle v. Real Estate Commission, involving a real estate agent in a dispute over a house sale, the Alaska high
court held that the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against Lightle was justified because:
a. Lightle wanted to buy the house and so misled other buyers
b. Lightle failed to tell the sellers that there were offers on the house
c. Lightle made racist remarks about the potential buyers
d. Lightle made a full disclosure that revealed facts that “might have affected the recipient‘s conduct in the
transaction in hand.”
e. none of the other choices are correct
35. The key element(s) of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is (are):
a. a contract between the injured party and another party (not the defendant)
b. the defendant knew about a contract between the injured party and another party
c. the defendant intentionally interfered with a contract between the injured party and another party
d. losses were incurred
e. all of the other choices
36. Key element(s) of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is (are):
a. a contract between the injured party and the defendant who interfered
b. the defendant knew about a contract between the injured party and another party
c. malice by the defendant must be shown
d. a warranty of performance in a contract is breached
e. all of the other specific choices
37. Key element(s) of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is (are):
a. a contract between the injured party and the defendant who interfered
b. the defendant intentionally interfered with a contract between the injured party and another party
c. malice by the defendant must be shown
d. a warranty of performance in a contract is breached
e. all of the other specific choices
38. Key element(s) of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is (are):
a. a contract between the injured party and the defendant
b. losses were incurred
c. malice by the defendant must be shown
d. a warranty of performance in a contract is breached
e. all of the other specific choices
39. In Slater Numismatics v. Driving Force, Driving Force was set up by former employees of a firm Slater
worked closely with. Driving Force then move to capture business from a major client of Slater. Slater sued for
interference with contractual relations. The appeals court held that Slater
a. presented a strong case for intentional interference as Driving Force appeared to make is hard for Slater
to perform its contractual duties
b. could sue for intentional interference because Driving Force was shown to have “profit motives” for
attempting to take away business
c. had been defrauded by Driving Force
d. could not sue Driving Force because it was a matter of “hard but honest competition“
e. none of the other choices are correct
40. In Slater Numismatics v. Driving Force, Driving Force was set up by former employees of a firm Slater
worked closely with. Driving Force then move to capture business from a major client of Slater. Slater sued for
interference with contractual relations. The appeals court held that Slater:
a. failed to show improper interference with a contract, only possible interference with prospective
customers
b. could sue for intentional interference because Driving Force was shown to have “profit motives” for
attempting to take away business
c. had been defrauded by Driving Force
d. could not sue Driving Force because it was a matter of “hard but honest competition“
e. none of the other choices are correct
41. One well-known business torts is:
a. intentional interference with contractual relations
b. unintentional interference with contractual relations
c. forced interference with contractual relations
d. interference with advantaged clients
e. interference with intent
42. In a case of intentional interference with contractual relations the claim is:
a. the injured business’s contractual relations were wrongfully interfered with by another party
b. the injured business’s contractual relations were rightfully interfered with by another party
c. the injured business’s contractual relations were illegal
d. the injured business’s contractual relations were hindered by international regulations
e. none of the other choices are correct
43. In a case of intentional interference with contractual relations the claim is:
a. the injured business’s contractual relations caused them to lose money
b. the injured business’s contractual relations were rightfully interfered with by another party
c. the injured business’s contractual relations were illegal
d. the injured business’s contractual relations were hindered by international regulations
e. none of the other choices are correct
44. The elements of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations include:
a. the existence of a contractual relationship between the injured business and another party
b. the wrongdoer‘s knowledge of the contractual relationship between the injured business and another party
c. intentional interference with the contractual relationship
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
45. The elements of the tort of interference with a prospective advantage (relationship) include:
a. fraud
b. manipulation of the securities market for personal gain
c. predatory behavior
d. defamation of a competitor
e. all of the other choices
46. Which tort is concerned with a business attempting to improve itself in the market by interfering with another‘s
business in an unreasonable and improper manner:
a. interference with prospective advantage
b. interference with competition
c. interference with business practices
d. interference with intent
e. none of the other choices
47. Meddling with another’s business in an unreasonable and improper manner to improve one’s own place in the
market it an example of the tort of:
a. interference with prospective advantage
b. interference with competition
c. interference with business practices
d. interference with intent
e. none of the other choices
48. In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the
former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of
the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke
sued his former employer the courts held that he had a good cause of action for:
a. trespass of business property
b. fraud
c. interference with prospective contractual relations
d. negligent misrepresentation
e. none of the other choices
49. In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the
former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of
the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke
sued his former employer the courts held that he had a good cause of action for:
a. was not liable as it had no obligation to write policies
b. was not liable as it was prohibited by the state from doing insurance business any longer
c. was liable as it prohibited MDM from continuing its relationships with clients
d. was liable as it induced MDM to develop business relationships that were suddenly cancelled
e. none of the other choices
50. In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the
former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of
the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke
sued his former employer the courts held that the former employer:
a. was not liable in tort as its actions did not go beyond “normal business activities”
b. was not liable as Gieseke was not properly licensed
c. was liable for negligent misrepresentation of Gieseke‘s business to other parties
d. was liable for interference with prospective contractual relations
e. none of the other choices
51. In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the
former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of
the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke
sued his former employer the courts held that the former employer:
a. was not liable in tort as its actions did not go beyond “normal business activities”
b. was not liable as Gieseke was not properly licensedy
c. was liable for criminal intent to misappropriate Gieseke‘s property
d. was liable for breach of the “presumption of goodwill” in business relations
e. none of the other choices are correct
52. The law of product liability is primarily concerned with:
a. harms suffered by stockholders when the value of their investment falls
b. harms suffered by buyers and other persons who use defective products
c. harms suffered by businesses for interference with their relations
d. contractual harms suffered by institutional investors
e. none of these
53. The law of product liability is primarily concerned with:
a. harms suffered by stockholders when the value of their investment falls
b. harms suffered by sellers of defective products
c. harms suffered by businesses for interference with their relations
d. contractual harms suffered by institutional investors
e. none of these
54. The is primarily concerned with harms suffered by buyers and other persons who use defective products.
a. law of stock protection
b. law of product liability
c. law of seller liability
d. law of commercial liability
e. law of malpractice liability