A homeowner hired a contractor to build a deck. The written contract specified that the contractor would use "western red cedar" for all decking materials. Without consulting the homeowner, the contractor substituted Douglas fir, which is less expensive but of comparable quality and appearance. The homeowner discovered the substitution after the deck was completed and refused to pay. In a suit by the contractor for the contract price, who will prevail?
The contractor, because the substitution did not diminish the deck's value.
The contractor, because he substantially performed the contract.
The homeowner, because the contractor failed to use the specified materials.
The homeowner, because she did not consent to the modification.
Consider whether the specification of materials was a condition or merely a covenant, and what happens when a party intentionally deviates from contract terms.
When a contract explicitly specifies particular materials, using different materials - even if of comparable quality - constitutes a material breach. The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply when the deviation is intentional. The homeowner can refuse to pay because the contractor knowingly failed to perform as promised.
A state enacted a statute prohibiting the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 years of age. A video game retailer challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds. The state argued that the statute was necessary to protect minors from psychological harm. Which of the following best describes the applicable standard of review?
Rational basis review, because the regulation involves economic activity.
Intermediate scrutiny, because the regulation involves commercial speech.
Strict scrutiny, because the regulation is a content-based restriction on protected speech.
The obscenity standard, because violent content is unprotected speech.
Video games are a form of expression. Consider what level of scrutiny applies to laws that restrict speech based on its content.
Video games qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment. A law restricting their sale based on violent content is a content-based regulation, which triggers strict scrutiny. The government must show the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Violence, unlike obscenity, is not an unprotected category of speech.
A plaintiff was injured when she slipped on ice in the parking lot of a grocery store. She sued the store for negligence. At trial, she called a witness who testified that he had slipped on ice in the same location two weeks before the plaintiff's accident and had reported it to the store manager. The store objected to the testimony. The court should rule the testimony:
Inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
Inadmissible, because it is hearsay.
Admissible, to show the store had notice of the dangerous condition.
Admissible, to show the store's negligent habit.
Prior similar incidents can be relevant for purposes other than showing propensity. Consider what this evidence tends to prove about the store's knowledge.
Evidence of prior similar incidents is admissible to establish notice of a dangerous condition, which is an element the plaintiff must prove. The testimony shows the store knew or should have known about the icy condition. This is not character evidence or hearsay - it's direct evidence of notice.
A woman owned a house and conveyed it "to my brother for life, then to my sister." Two years later, the brother conveyed his interest to a friend. Shortly after, the brother died. Who owns the house?
The friend, because the brother validly conveyed his interest.
The woman, because the brother's conveyance was void.
The sister, because the brother's life estate ended at his death.
The friend and the sister as tenants in common.
A life estate is measured by the life of the life tenant. Consider what happens to any interest derived from a life estate when the measuring life ends.
The brother had a life estate, which he could convey. However, he could only convey what he had - a life estate measured by his own life (pur autre vie). When the brother died, the life estate ended, and the friend's interest terminated. The sister's remainder became possessory.
A defendant was charged with armed robbery. The prosecution's key witness testified that she saw the defendant commit the robbery. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked whether the witness had been convicted of perjury three years ago. The prosecution objected. How should the court rule?
Sustained, because the conviction is too remote in time.
Sustained, because specific instances of conduct cannot be used to impeach.
Overruled, because any felony conviction is admissible for impeachment.
Overruled, because a perjury conviction is admissible to attack credibility.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, convictions involving dishonesty or false statement are treated differently than other felonies for impeachment purposes.
Under FRE 609(a)(2), convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement - such as perjury - are automatically admissible to impeach a witness, regardless of the punishment. Unlike other felonies, there is no balancing test. The three-year time frame is within the 10-year limit for presumptive admissibility.
