Psychologist Holtz is working with a patient, Rebecca, who has expressed the intention
to seriously harm two of her acquaintances. If you apply the principle set forth by the
Supreme Court of California in the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
case, Psychologist Holtz:
a. has, because of the bystander rule, no duty to warn the foreseeable victims about
Rebeccas expressed intention to harm them.
b. has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victims of Rebeccas
violence.
c. is in a special relationship with patients, and this relationship creates a privilege of
confidentiality between the communicants.
d. will be held to a strict duty of care and will be held liable for any victims injuries if
Holtz failed to warn them of Rebeccas potential violence toward them.
The Johnsons decided to sell their summer cabin on Beech Lake. They sent flyers out to
all who previously had expressed an interest in buying the cabin stating that they were
planning on selling their cabin. The flyer described the location of the property, the size
of the lot, and the price. If one of the recipients responds by sending a letter accepting,
an agreement:
a. will not be formed because the flyer was sent out as an invitation to make an offer.
b. will be formed because the first to respond gets the property.
c. will be formed because the price is included.
d. will not be formed because of the parol evidence rule.