Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Business Law
Q:
A gift inter vivos can never be revoked.
Q:
Delivery of intangible personal property must be done by symbolic delivery.
Q:
A promise to deliver a gift is constructive delivery.
Q:
The donee must give consideration for a gift to be effective.
Q:
Property acquired by gift during a marriage is community property.
Q:
Nearly all states now allow property to be owned as community property.
Q:
Ownership by one person in fee simple is a tenancy by the entirety.
Q:
Only two persons can hold property as joints tenants.
Q:
An unlimited number of persons can hold property as tenants in common.
Q:
Tangible personal property has physical substance.
Q:
American Manufacturing Company (AMC) requires that its employees wear uniforms and protective clothing while on the job. AMC provides a locker room for the employees to leave their street clothes and personal items while working. A sign on the back of the locker room door states, "American Manufacturing is not responsible for the loss of any property in the locker room." Bob, an AMC employee, changes his clothes in the locker room before starting work and leaves his wallet and watch in a pocket of his jacket hanging in his locker. When he returns after his shift, the wallet and watch are gone. Does Bob's leaving personal items in the locker room constitute a bailment? If so, what type of bailment? If not, what legal relationship is it? Does AMC's sign exculpate the company for Bob's loss? Why or why not?
Q:
Carl and Donna are not married to each other, but they share ownership rights in a computer network. When they acquired the equipment, they agreed in writing that if one dies, the other inherits his or her interest. Are Carl and Donna community property owners, joint tenants, tenants by the entirety, or tenants in common?
Q:
Tom stores video equipment with U-Store-It, Inc., under a contract that excuses the warehouser from liability for any damage. A fire due to U-Store-It's negligence destroys the equipment. The loss is most likely suffered by
a. Tom and U-Store-It.
b. Tom only.
c. U-Store-It only.
d. neither Tom nor U-Store-It.
Q:
Beta Company arranges to have Carrier Corporation, a common carrier, transport 500 DVD players from New York to California. Dan is Carrier's driver. Beta will have no cause of action against Carrier if Carrier fails to deliver the players on time because
a. authorities are stopping and searching all trucks entering California.
b. Carrier's dispatcher mistakenly delays Dan's departure.
c. Carrier's truck is broken into and the players are stolen.
d. Dan has to wait two days in Denver for the truck to be repaired.
Q:
Bob rents a golf cart at Country Club Golf Course. The brakes are worn, and while Bob is driving the cart, they fail. The cart crashes into a tree, and Bob is injured. Country Club could have discovered, with reasonable diligence, that the brakes were worn. Liability for Bob's injuries most likely rests with
a. Bob and Country Club.
b. Bob only.
c. Country Club only.
d. neither Bob nor Country Club.
Q:
Bob rented a storage room at We-Store-It. About a week after Bob put some of his furniture in the room, he returned to find that many of the legs were broken off of the chairs and the fabric on the sofa had new holes in it. We-Store-It denied any liability and claimed that someone must have broken into the room and damaged the furniture. Bob sued We-Store-It for damages. Based on the decision in Case 4, Lembaga Enterprises, Inc. v. Cace Trucking & Warehouse, Inc., the court in this case would most likely rule that
a. We-Store-It is required to rebut the presumption that it was negligent.
b. We-Store-It is liable because a bailee is automatically liable when property is damaged, and the damage is not the fault of the bailor.
c. Bob has the burden of proving that We-Store-It was negligent.
d. Bob had the burden of proving that We-Store-It was liable for intentional conversion.
Q:
Quint rents a riding lawnmower from Rent-All, Inc. While the mower is in Quint's possession, Simon vandalizes and damages it. Liability for the damage most likely rests with
a. Quint and Rent-All.
b. Quint only.
c. Rent-All only.
d. neither Quint nor Rent-All.
Q:
Jill loans her laptop computer to Kyle. This is a bailment for
a. neither party's benefit.
b. the parties' mutual benefit.
c. the sole benefit of the bailee.
d. the sole benefit of the bailor.
Q:
Sid borrows Tony's paint sprayer to paint his house. Uma allows Vic to store his posthole digger in her shed. The party with a right to use the bailed property is
a. neither Sid nor Uma.
b. Sid and Uma.
c. Sid only.
d. Uma only.
Q:
Mona asks Ned if she can store her furniture in his garage while she serves a tour of duty abroad with the U.S. Marines. Ned agrees. This is a bailment for
a. neither party's benefit.
b. the parties' mutual benefit.
c. the sole benefit of the bailee.
d. the sole benefit of the bailor.
Q:
Jennifer finds a set of luggage that she believes may be subject to an estray statute. Estray statutes apply to
a. abandoned property.
b. bailed property.
c. lost property.
d. mislaid property.
Q:
Inadvertently, Britney leaves her briefcase at Clean "˜n Dry Launderers when she stops to pick up her clothes. The briefcase is
a. abandoned property.
b. bailed property.
c. lost property.
d. mislaid property.
Q:
Elle, an artist, finds an old canoe in woods behind her property. Her neighbors consider it abandoned. Elle cleans it, paints scenes on it depicting Native American rituals, and displays it in her art gallery. Flo, the canoe's original owner, claims it, but a court grants Elle title. This is
a. a bailment.
b. accession.
c. confusion.
d. production.
Q:
Idaho Farms mistakenly puts its potatoes in Jolly Harvest's storage bin, which already contains Jolly Harvest's potatoes. It is impossible to tell which potatoes originally belonged to either party. This is
a. a bailment.
b. accession.
c. confusion.
d. production.
Q:
According to the court in Case 47.3, In re Estate of Piper, the elements of a legally valid inter vivos gift include all of the following except
a. the donor's present intention to make a gift.
b. effective delivery of the property to the donee.
c. acceptance by the donee.
d. a written instrument excluding the gift property from the donor's will.
Q:
Before undergoing surgery that could cause paralysis, Greg, a violinist, gives his concert violin to Holly. The surgery is successful, and Greg suffers no paralysis. Greg can
a. not revoke his gift because it was a gift causa mortis.
b. not revoke his gift because it was a gift inter vivos.
c. revoke his gift because it was a gift causa mortis.
d. revoke his gift because it was a gift inter vivos.
Q:
Floyd tells his daughter Glenda that she can have his Harley Davidson when he dies, but he does not add this to his will. This is
a. a valid gift causa mortis.
b. a valid gift inter vivos.
c. a valid gift testamentary.
d. not a valid gift.
Q:
Ansel owns Bar-B Ranch. Ansel's only son Cody owns Double-D Ranch in the same county. Ansel gives 90 percent of the Bar-B to Etta, a short-term employee. This gift
c. may lack the required element of "donative intent."
b. may lack the required element of "donor's acknowledgement."
a. may lack the required element of "heir's acquiescence."
d. meets all of the requirements for an effective gift.
Q:
Ruth gives Seth a computer as a gift. Using the computer, Seth develops a new game, for which he obtains intellectual property protection, and forms Top Games, Inc., to make and market the game. Seth's acquisition of the game is by
a. a bailment.
b. accession.
c. confusion.
d. production.
Q:
Gail and Hal are married and own a van in such a way that neither may transfer separately his or her interest during his or her lifetime. Gail and Hal own the van as
a. co-owners in fee simple.
b. joint tenants.
c. tenants by the entirety.
d. tenants in common.
Q:
Don and Eve own a recreational vehicle (RV) as joint tenants. Don sells his ownership rights in the RV to Fred. Eve and Fred own the RV asa. co-owners in fee simple.b. joint tenants.c. tenants by the entirety.d. tenants in common.
Q:
A warehouse company may never, under any circumstances, limit the extent of its liability for loss or damage of bailed property.
Q:
In most bailments, the bailor must notify the bailee of hidden defects of which the bailor knows or could have discovered with reasonable diligence.
Q:
If a bailee fails to return bailed property to a bailor, the bailee may be liable for breach of contract.
Q:
1 Standard Business Corporation may be engaging in conduct that violates the Sherman Act. To bring an action against the firm requires that its conduct have a significant impact ona. international commerce.b. Internet commerce.c. interstate commerce.d. intrastate commerce.
Q:
2 Using market power to drive competitors out of business is illegal.
Q:
Java Bean Company imports coffee beans and sells them under two-year contracts to Mellow Roast, Inc., and other coffeemakers. The contracts require that during the two-year term a coffeemaker not buy beans from Java Bean's competitors. The contracts do not limit the coffeemakers' purchase of tea or other beverage ingredients from other suppliers, however. In the second year of the contract, Mellow Roast protests that this arrangement violates antitrust law. Is Mellow Roast correct? If not, why not? If so, under which antitrust statute, or statutes, could these contracts be held illegal?
Q:
Under what circumstances would Mom's Tools & Hardware, a small store in the middle of Nowhere, a small, isolated town, be considered a monopoly? If Mom's is a monopoly, is it in violation of antitrust law?
Q:
Quantity Sales Corporation (QSC) engages in conduct that violates the antitrust laws and injures Regional Company's business. Regional can sue QSC for
a. attorneys' fees only.
b. attorneys' fees and damages only.
c. attorneys' fees and treble damages.
d. nothing.
Q:
Global Services Corporation engages in trade practices that may violate antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission has the power to act against unfair trade practices under
a. the Clayton Act.
b. the Federal Trade Commission Act.
c. the Interstate Commerce Act.
d. the Sherman Act.
Q:
Good Eatin" Corporation merges with Hasty Burgers, Inc. This merger between firms that compete with each other in the same market is
a. a horizontal merger.
b. an interlocking directorate.
c. a tying arrangement.
d. a vertical merger.
Q:
Excel Corporation conditions shipments of its products to Federated Stores, Inc., on Federated's agreement not to buy products from Great Company, Excel's competitor. This is
a. an exclusive-dealing contract.
b. a tying arrangement.
c. price discrimination.
d. price fixing.
Q:
Press Corporation, a disk manufacturer, sells its DVDs in certain quantities to Quik Shows, a retailer, for $275 but charges Right Stuff, a competitive retailer, $350. This is most likely a violation of
a. the Clayton Act.
b. the Federal Trade Commission Act.
c. the Interstate Commerce Act.
d. the Sherman Act.
Q:
Eagle Parts Company charges different buyers different prices for identical goods. Eagle's prices are subject to evaluation under
a. the Clayton Act.
b. the Federal Trade Commission Act.
c. the Interstate Commerce Act.
d. the Sherman Act.
Q:
Alpha Computers, Inc., has the power to control the market for its product. Antitrust law regulates
a. how Alpha acquired its power and what it does with it.
b. neither how Alpha acquired its power nor what it does with it.
c. only how Alpha acquired its power.
d. only what Alpha does with its power.
Q:
Product Manufacturing Corporation has exclusive control over the market for its product. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a. a per se violation.
b. a violation if it acquired this power through "business acumen."
c. a violation if it acquired this power through "anticompetitive means."
d. not a violation.
Q:
Fresh Vegetables, Inc., a wholesaler, refuses to sell its produce to Good Mart Stores, Inc., a retailer. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a. "an unfair or deceptive act or practice."
b. a per se violation.
c. not a violation.
d. subject to the rule of reason.
Q:
Gourmet Foods, Inc., requires all distributors of its products to sell them at a specified minimum price. Under the Sherman Act, this is a violation
a. if the anticompetitive effects outweigh the competitive benefits.
b. if the competitive benefits outweigh the anticompetitive effects.
c. under any circumstances.
d. under no circumstances.
Q:
In Case 46.1, Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that vertical restrictions such as the restrictions established by Sylvania
a. promote interbrand competition.
b. promote illegal trade practices.
c. promote horizontal restrictions.
d. promote good oral hygiene.
Q:
Omega Corporation and Precision Products, Inc., are the principal suppliers of their product in their market. They agree that Omega will sell exclusively to retailers and Precision will sell exclusively to wholesalers. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a. a per se violation.
b. a violation only if their competitors make similar deals.
c. a violation only if they thereby acquire monopoly power.
d. not a violation.
Q:
Pacific Bicycle, Inc., is the major distributor of bikes in the state of California. Pacific's closest competitor is Quality Bike Company, another California firm. They agree that Quality will distribute bikes in northern California and Pacific will distribute bikes in southern California. This is
a. a group boycott.
b. a market division.
c. a price-fixing agreement.
d. a tying arrangement.
Q:
Blue Company and Cherry Corporation are the chief competitors in their market. They agree that Blue will operate only north of the Mason-Dixon line and Cherry will operate only south of the same line. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a. a per se violation.
b. a violation only if their competitors make similar deals.
c. a violation only if they thereby acquire monopoly power.
d. not a violation.
Q:
The United Association of Software Makers, which does not include all software producers, refuses to deal with any parties who do not carry the products of its members. Under the Sherman Act, this group boycott is
a. a per se violation if it eliminates competition or prevents entry into a given market.
b. a per se violation under all circumstances.
c. subject to the rule of reason.
d. not a violation.
Q:
AgriEquip Corporation, Best Harvest Company, and Corn Belt Enterprises, Inc., are farm-equipment distributors that control 90 percent of the market for their products in a certain geographic area. The firms agree to sell their products for the same prices. This is
a. a group boycott.
b. a merger.
c. a price-fixing agreement.
d. a tying arrangement.
Q:
Fact Pattern 46-1
Quality Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (QPI), makes the prescription drug Reflux. Substitute Drugs Company (SDC) develops a generic version. SDC agrees not to market the generic in exchange for $40 million per year from QPI until a dispute between them over the patent for the drug is resolved.
Refer to Fact Pattern 46-1. The agreement between QPI and SDC is
a. a horizontal restraint.
b. a legitimate joint venture.
c. a reasonable price-fixing agreement.
d. a vertical restraint.
Q:
Fact Pattern 46-1
Quality Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (QPI), makes the prescription drug Reflux. Substitute Drugs Company (SDC) develops a generic version. SDC agrees not to market the generic in exchange for $40 million per year from QPI until a dispute between them over the patent for the drug is resolved.
Refer to Fact Pattern 46-1. A court would most likely rule that the agreement between QPI and SDC is
a. exempt from the antitrust laws.
b. per se illegal.
c. per se reasonable.
d. subject to analysis under the rule of reason.
Q:
Seven Ivy League colleges and universities conspire to fix tuition prices and financial aid packages. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a. a per se violation.
b. a violation only if their competitors also lower prices.
c. a violation only if they thereby acquire monopoly power.
d. not a violation.
Q:
Professional baseball is not generally subject to antitrust regulation.
Q:
A divestiture is an order to a company to cease, or divest itself of, its anticompetitive conduct.
Q:
No person may be a director for two or more competing corporations at the same time if either firm's competitive sales exceed a certain amount.
Q:
In determining the legality of a merger, a crucial consideration is market concentration.
Q:
A tying arrangement exists when two competitors agree to fix, or "tie," their prices at the same level.
Q:
An exclusive-dealing contract is an agreement between two or more buyers or sellers to refuse to deal with a specific party.
Q:
Exclusive-dealing contracts are per se violations of antitrust law.
Q:
An attempt to monopolize a market cannot violate antitrust law.
Q:
In measuring a firm's market power, the market-share test is a binding principle of law.
Q:
A relevant product market includes products that are sufficient substitutes for each other.
Q:
A resale price maintenance agreement may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Q:
A joint venture is any agreement between two or more buyers or sellers to refuse to engage in any transaction with a particular person or organization.
Q:
If a joint venture involves price fixing or a market division, it will be analyzed under the rule of reason.
Q:
A market division by class of customer between rival firms is a violation of antitrust law.
Q:
The size of a firm determines whether it is a monopolist.
Q:
Monopoly power is market power sufficient to control prices and exclude competition.
Q:
The Sherman Act applies only to acts that have a significant impact on interstate commerce.
Q:
Market power is a firm's power to affect the market price of its product.
Q:
A restraint of trade is any agreement between firms that has the effect of reducing competition in the marketplace.
Q:
Syntech Corporation makes computers. Total Digital, Inc., is a chain of retail computer stores. Syntech and Total Digital merge. Syntech is the surviving entity. What factors determine whether this merger is illegal under the Clayton Act?
Q:
Alpha, Inc., Beta Corporation, and Omega Company compete against each other in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. To reduce marketing costs, they agree that Alpha will sell products only in Illinois, Beta only in Indiana, and Omega only in Ohio. This allows each firm to raise the price of the goods in its state and increase profits. Is this a violation of antitrust law? If so, is it a per se violation or is it subject to evaluation under the rule of reason?
Q:
Fine Golf Products, Inc., and Great Clubs Corporation lobby Congress to pass a law banning a competitor's product. This joint effort is probably
a. a violation of antitrust statutes.
b. exempt from antitrust enforcement.
c. not subject to antitrust law.
d. subject only to antitrust common law.
Q:
Ace Corporation believes that Best Corporation engages in anticompetitive behavior in an attempt to drive Ace and its other competitors out of the market. Antitrust laws can be enforced against Best by
a. Ace and its competitors only.
b. Ace, its competitors, and the Federal Trade Commission only.
c. Ace, its competitors, the Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
d. the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice only.