264. You go to a flea market and buy a LCD TV for $100. One day you receive a notice that the owner of the TV,
which had been stolen from her house and sold by the thief at the flea market, wants the set back. She says if you
do not return the TV she will sue you for:
a. fraud, and probably win even though you did not know the set was stolen
b. conversion, and probably lose because you did not know the set was stolen
c. fraud, and probably lose because you did not know the set was stolen
d. theft, and probably lose because you did not know the set was stolen
e. none of the other choices
265. When intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets or trademarks, is taken by others without
permission, there is a tort of:
a. conversion
b. trespass to personal property
c. misappropriation
d. nuisance
e. invasion of privacy
266. When intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets or trademarks, is taken by others without
permission, there is a tort of:
a. conversion
b. trespass to personal property
c. negligence
d. nuisance
e. none of the other choices
267. is the tort that occurs when intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets or trademarks, is
taken by others without permission.
a. conversion
b. trespass to personal property
c. misappropriation
d. nuisance
e. invasion of privacy
268. is the tort that occurs when intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets or trademarks, is
taken by others without permission.
a. conversion
b. trespass to personal property
c. negligence
d. nuisance
e. invasion of privacy
269. In cases involving businesses, where the public enters the business as a part of doing business, the law presumes
the property:
a. is surrounded by guards at all times
b. is safe for public admission
c. is owned by the person who runs the business
d. owner owes the public no particular duty of care
e. none of these
270. Property owners have:
a. a duty to inspect premises for dangers and correct the problem or warn invitees of the dangers
b. no duty to inspect premises for dangers and correct the problem or warn invitees of the dangers
c. a duty to warn only minors of dangers on the property
d. a duty to allow anyone and everyone onto the property
e. a duty to post safety guards on the property
271. If a danger is obvious:
a. people have a duty to protect themselves
b. people do not have a duty to protect themselves
c. property owners must post warning signs
d. property owners must verbally warn invitees
e. none of the other choices are correct
272. In DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, 11-year-old DiPietro was injured when playing soccer at
Farmington. She contended that the artificial turf was defective and sued for:
a. battery
b. trespass to personal property
c. violating the duty of absolute care to patrons
d. premises liability
e. none of the other choices
273. In DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, 11–year-old DiPietro was injured when playing soccer at
Farmington. She contended that the artificial turf was defective and sued for:
a. battery
b. trespass to personal property
c. violating the duty of absolute care to patrons
d. premises liability
e. none of the other choices
274. In DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, 11-year-old DiPietro was injured when playing soccer at
Farmington. She contended that the artificial turf was defective and sued for premises liability, contending that
Farmington was negligent by allowing a dangerous playing surface to be used. The courts held that:
a. Farmington had an obligation to warn patrons of the possibility of an uneven surface and was negligent for not
doing so
b. Farmington was liable for the tort of battery for allowing a patron to be injured on a defective playing
surface
c. Farmington was liable in strict liability for continuing to use a dangerous surface that created a hazard to
patrons
d. Farmington was not shown to have violated a duty of care and was not liable
e. none of the other choices
275. In Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, a woman was murdered in a Bloomingdale‘s parking lot in
Connecticut. The court held the store:
a. met its duty of care and so was not liable
b. was strictly liable to the woman
c. was negligent in not having a security guard at the time of the murder
d. would have been negligent if it had not had a security guard, but it had one and so was not liable despite the
murder
e. intentionally harmed the woman
276. In Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, a woman was murdered in a Bloomingdale‘s parking lot in
Connecticut. The court held the store:
a. met its duty of care and so was not liable
b. was strictly liable to the woman
c. would have been negligent if it had not had a security guard, but it had one and so was not liable despite the
murder
d. intentionally harmed the woman
e. none of the other choices
277. In Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets, a woman who was shopping was seriously injured by a robber in the
parking lot. She sued the store claiming that its failure to provide adequate security was a breach of its duty to her.
The Nebraska high court held that the store could:
a. be sued for negligence
b. be sued for strict liability for failure to protect a patron
c. have been liable if the incident occurred in the store, but not out in the parking lot
d. not be liable as the incident was a random, uncommon event
e. none of the other choices
278. In Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets, a woman who was shopping was seriously injured by a robber in the
parking lot. She sued the store claiming that its failure to provide adequate security was a breach of its duty to her.
The Nebraska high court held that:
a. the store could be sued for negligence because there was a sufficient amount of criminal activity in the area
to warrant warning customers
b. the store could not be sued for negligence because there was a sufficient amount of criminal activity in the
area to warrant warning customers
c. the store could not be sued for negligence because there was not a sufficient amount of criminal activity in
the area to warrant warning customers
d. the store could not be sued for negligence because Erichsen had a duty to protect herself
e. the store could not be sued for negligence because the high crime in the area was common knowledge
279. In Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets, a woman who was shopping was seriously injured by a robber in the
parking lot. She sued the store claiming that its failure to provide adequate security was a breach of its duty to her.
The Nebraska high court held that:
a. if Erichsen had been the only person attacked in the area, the store could not have been held liable
b. even if Erichsen had been the only person attacked in the area the store would still have been liable for
negligence
c. the store could not be sued for negligence because there was not a sufficient amount of criminal activity in
the area to warrant warning customers
d. the store could not be sued for negligence because Erichsen had a duty to protect herself
e. the store could not be sued for negligence because the high crime in the area was common knowledge
280. In Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets, a woman who was shopping was seriously injured by a robber in the
parking lot. She sued the store claiming that its failure to provide adequate security was a breach of its duty to her.
The Nebraska high court held that the store could:
a. be sued because the assailant was a store employee
b. be sued for strict liability for failure to protect a patron
c. have been liable if the incident occurred in the store, but not out in the parking lot
d. not be liable as the incident was a random, uncommon event
e. none of these
Fact Pattern 8-1
Jill recently inherited money from her old aunt Maude. Jill decided to buy beach-front property in Beaufort, South
Carolina. Jill’s new property consists of 3 acres of land, with direct access to the ocean. When she bought the land
there is no home on it, but she wants to build a beach home in the future. A year after she bought the lovely lot, the
city of Beaufort rezones the land, prohibiting any building so that other residents can enjoy the view.
281. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. When Jill purchases the beach-front land, the ownership rights in this land will be
transferred to her in:
a. a covenant
b. an easement
c. a deed
d. a suretyship
e. a remainder
282. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. Suppose that when Jill purchases her land there is a ruin of an old pre-Civil War
Episcopal Church on the property. The ruin is best described as:
a. a fee defeasible
b. real property
c. personal property
d. devised property
e. enfoeffed property
283. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. When Jill buys her beach-front land she also buys the right to exclusive possession of
and enjoyment of those 3 acres. What Jill has purchased is:
a. a fee defeasible
b. a life estate
c. a reverter interest
d. a remainder interest
e. a fee simple estate
284. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. Suppose that one year after she buys her land, Jill gives her sister Kate the right to use
the 3 acres of beach-front property so long as she lives. This is known as:
a. a fee defeasible
b. a fee simple
c. a life estate
d. a remainder interest
e. a past interest
285. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. Grady comes to Jill, after she was purchased the 3 acres of land and asks her if he can
fish on her property. Jill tells Grady that she will be happy to allow him to fish on her land whenever he wishes, so
long as he pays her $500.00 per year for the right. If Grady agrees and he and Jill write an agreement to this effect,
what they have is:
a. a covenant
b. an easement
c. a collective right
d. a disenfranchised right
e. an easement by prescription
286. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. Suppose that Grady never asked Jill for her permission to fish on her land. He fishes
there whenever he wants. It is possible that if Jill doesn’t tell him to “get lost,” after many years:
a. Grady may adversely possess or have an easement in a right to fish
b. Grady may be granted the land as a defeasible fee
c. Grady may be granted a covenant in the land
d. Grady will never get any interests in Jill’s property
e. none of these
287. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. Suppose that Jill builds a small cottage on her property (forget the city ordinance for a
moment). The cottage is lovely and she hates to see it sit unused for many months of the year, so she rents the
cottage for several weeks at a time to various people. Once it is rented the cottage is:
a. a retainer
b. a freehold
c. a leasehold
d. a conveyor
e. a tangible remainder
288. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. When the city of Beaufort passes the ordinance limited the uses of beach-front property,
the city relies upon:
a. its due process powers
b. its police powers
c. its criminal powers
d. its power of dominant domain
e. none of these
289. Refer to Fact Pattern 8-1. If, as a result of its new ordinance, the city of Beaufort causes Jill’s property to be worth
$1.1 million instead of the $1.5 million she paid for it:
a. the city will have to pay Jill just compensation
b. the city will have to give Jill other property
c. Jill will have to deed her property to the city
d. Jill will have to sign over her due process rights
e. Jill is out of luck