A) If a person creates a piece of property for himself or herself,then he or she owns that property only so long as it is registered through either the patent or copyright process.
B) In a bankruptcy case the court may award ownership of certain property to a creditor.
C) A person may acquire ownership through confusion.
D) When a person is paid to create property for someone else,the property is owned by the person who paid for its creation.
E) A means of acquiring ownership is by court order.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Only the duty of compensation.
B) The duty of compensation and reimbursement,and the duty to warn the bailee of known defects or any that could have been discovered through reasonable investigation.
C) The duty of compensation and reimbursement,the duty to provide the bailee with property free from hidden defects that could harm the bailee,and the duty to keep accurate records of the transaction.
D) Only the duty to provide the bailee with property free from hidden defects that could harm the bailee.
E) Only the duty of compensation and reimbursement.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Because there was no certainty that Devin would die,there was no valid inter vivos or causa mortis gift.
B) Once Kendra accepted the ticket,a valid gift was made which could not be revoked.
C) The gift was irrevocable based on the condition that Kendra never had another boyfriend;otherwise,she had to give the ticket and any resulting cash back to Devin.
D) Because he did not die and recovered from the surgery,his gift to Kendra was automatically revoked.
E) The gift was irrevocable based on the condition that Kendra never had another boyfriend;but because the gift was of the ticket itself and not the potential winnings,once the ticket was converted into cash,the gift became fully irrevocable and the condition no longer applied.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Bailee
B) Transferee
C) Transferor
D) Novator
E) Bailor
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The original verdict was affirmed,and the defendant was entitled to keep the ring because the termination of the engagement was the plaintiff's fault.
B) The original verdict was affirmed and the defendant was entitled to keep the ring because it was an inter vivos gift,and there had been delivery,donative intent,and acceptance of the gift when she initially received it.
C) The original verdict was affirmed in part and reversed in part,because under principles of equity,the plaintiff was entitled to keep the ring,but only if she paid the defendant half of its value and that if she refused to do so,the ring would be sold and the proceeds split between the parties.
D) The original verdict was reversed,because the ring was a conditional gift,and when the engagement was terminated,the defendant was required to return the ring.
E) The original verdict was affirmed in part,reversed in part,and remanded for a new trial because a jury question was presented as to whether the plaintiff made an absolute gift of the ring to the defendant after the termination of the engagement,and errors on the jury charge and verdict form prejudiced the plaintiff.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Receipt order
B) Warehouse receipt
C) Bill of lading
D) Delivery order
E) Negotiable receipt
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Personal
B) Real
C) Substantive
D) Valued
E) Appraised
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) He is incorrect because he has the right to take legal action against the thief,and Jason's conduct indicates that he has legal liability to Sabrina.
B) He is correct on all counts.
C) Only if he can identify the thief beyond a reasonable doubt is he correct that he has no further duties to Sabrina,because only Sabrina has the right to take legal action against the thief at that point.
D) He is incorrect that he has no liability to Sabrina,but correct that only Sabrina may take legal action against the thief.
E) He is correct that he has no liability to Sabrina,but incorrect that only Sabrina may take legal action against the thief.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Preventable
B) Convertible
C) Conditional
D) Invalid
E) Temporary
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A hotel is only liable for the loss of a guest's valuables when those valuables are stolen by a third party that is unrelated to the hotel.
B) A hotel cannot be held liable for the loss of a guest's valuables that could have been - but were not - deposited in the hotel safe.
C) A hotel is only liable for the loss of a guest's valuables if the value of the lost property is in excess of $50,000,regardless of where the valuables are stored.
D) A hotel is strictly liable for the loss of a guest's valuables,with no exceptions.
E) A hotel has no legal obligation to provide its guests with access to the hotel safe.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A bailment may be for consideration.
B) A bailment agreement must be contained in a written agreement.
C) The standard of care varies depending on who benefits from the bailment.
D) A bailment may be gratuitous.
E) The parties to a bailment contract can limit or expand the liability of the bailee by contract.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The bailee is liable for harm to the bailed property arising only out of the bailee's gross negligence only.
B) The bailee is liable for harm to the bailed property arising out of either the bailee's ordinary or gross negligence.
C) The bailee is liable for harm to the bailed property caused by even the slightest lack of due care on the part of the bailee.
D) The bailee is not liable for harm to the bailed property because of the doctrine of assumption of the risk.
E) The bailee is strictly liable for harm to the bailed property.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes,because a hotel is strictly liable for the safekeeping of the property of its guests.
B) No,because Lisa and Jason were lodgers,not guests.
C) No,because Lisa was clearly notified of the existence of the hotel safe and chose not to take advantage of it.
D) No,because a hotel has no obligation to safeguard its guests' valuables.
E) Yes,because the jewelry was valued at over $5,000.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Causa mortis gifts
B) Inter vivos gifts
C) Conditional gifts
D) Sustainable gifts
E) In rem gifts
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 21 - 40 of 88
Related Exams