Mixed Deck — All FYLSX Topics Flashcards

Which of the following is an essential element of the crime of solicitation?

Answer: The defendant must intend for the person solicited to commit the target crime.

The crime of solicitation is complete when the defendant, with the specific intent that another person commit a crime, asks, encourages, or commands that person to commit the crime. The crime solicited does not need to be attempted or completed, and the person solicited does not need to agree. The crime lies in the asking itself with the requisite criminal intent.

An offeree begins performance on a unilateral contract offer. Under the modern view, the offeror:

Answer: May not revoke the offer once the offeree has begun performance.

Under the modern/Restatement view (§ 45), commencement of performance on a unilateral contract creates an option, making the offer irrevocable until the offeree has a reasonable time to complete performance.

Dana grabs Paul's arm to prevent him from walking into traffic, holding him for 30 seconds against his will. Paul sues for false imprisonment. What is Dana's strongest defense?

Answer: Necessity

Necessity (or privilege) applies when the defendant acts to protect the plaintiff or others from harm, even without consent.

An employer tells an employee 'You can leave when your shift ends' after the employee asks to go home early during a crisis situation. Has false imprisonment occurred?

Answer: No, because the employer has a reasonable condition for the employee's departure

False imprisonment does not occur when the defendant provides a reasonable means or condition for the plaintiff's release.

Tom points a gun at Jerry and pulls the trigger. The gun misfires. Jerry, unaware the trigger was pulled, was looking away the entire time. Can Jerry recover for assault?

Answer: No, because Jerry had no apprehension of imminent contact

Assault requires that the plaintiff actually experienced apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; if Jerry was unaware, there is no assault.

Ian shoots at Jane intending to kill her, but misses. Ian is charged with attempted murder. The best description of attempt is:

Answer: An inchoate offense requiring a specific intent to commit the target crime and an act beyond mere preparation

Criminal attempt requires specific intent to commit the target crime and an act that goes beyond mere preparation toward its commission.

A defendant, intending to frighten a victim, points what he believes to be an unloaded gun at the victim and pulls the trigger. The gun, which the defendant had not checked, was actually loaded, and it discharges, killing the victim. The defendant's conduct would most likely be classified as:

Answer: Criminally negligent homicide (a form of involuntary manslaughter)

This act represents criminal negligence, a form of involuntary manslaughter. The defendant did not intend to kill but failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would cause death. A reasonable person would have checked to ensure the gun was unloaded before pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. This gross deviation from the standard of care makes the killing unlawful. Depraved-heart murder requires a more extreme reckless indifference to human life, which is a higher standard.

A defendant, while playing a prank, removes the wheelchair of a disabled plaintiff, preventing her from leaving a room. She is aware of the confinement. Which elements of false imprisonment are clearly satisfied?

Answer: Intent to confine and actual confinement with awareness

False imprisonment requires intent to confine, actual confinement, and the plaintiff's awareness of or harm from the confinement — all present here.

Karl promises to give his nephew $10,000 if the nephew quits smoking for one year. The nephew quits for the full year. Karl then refuses to pay. The nephew sues. What is the most likely outcome?

Answer: The nephew wins because he provided consideration by forbearing a legal right.

Forbearance from a legal right (the right to smoke) constitutes valid consideration, making Karl's promise enforceable.

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which of the following sellers is NOT subject to strict products liability?

Answer: A casual seller who occasionally sells used goods

Strict products liability under § 402A applies only to sellers engaged in the business of selling the product; a casual or occasional seller is not subject to strict liability.

Defendant picks up a wallet from the street, sees it contains $200, and decides to keep it. He is aware of a reasonable method to find the owner but ignores it. He is most likely guilty of:

Answer: Larceny by finding

Larceny by finding occurs when the finder realizes at the time of taking (or shortly after) that the owner is identifiable but nonetheless keeps the property with intent to deprive.

What is the Statute of Frauds?

Answer: A law requiring written contracts for specific agreements

The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that mandates certain types of contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. This law aims to prevent fraud and perjury by requiring written evidence for significant agreements, such as contracts for the sale of land, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, or contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value. If these contracts are not in writing, they may be deemed unenforceable.

A security guard at a department store observes a shopper place an expensive watch in her pocket. The guard stops the shopper just outside the exit and asks her to come to the back office. The shopper agrees. In the office, the guard locks the door and tells the shopper she cannot leave until she confesses. After ten minutes, the shopper, who is innocent, becomes extremely distressed. The store is most likely:

Answer: Liable for false imprisonment because the confinement exceeded the scope of the Shopkeeper's Privilege.

While the Shopkeeper's Privilege allows a store owner to detain a suspected shoplifter for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for investigation, this privilege is limited. [12, 20] The guard's actions of locking the door and conditioning the shopper's release on a confession likely exceed what is considered a reasonable manner of detention. [20] The initial consent to go to the office was vitiated once the shopper was locked in and told she could not leave. This constitutes confinement without a reasonable means of escape, fulfilling the elements of false imprisonment.

Adam and Beth agree to burglarize a specific house. Adam's role is to serve as the lookout while Beth enters the house. Unbeknownst to Adam, Beth brings a gun 'for protection.' During the burglary, a resident unexpectedly returns home, and Beth shoots and kills the resident. Adam is later arrested and charged with murder. Under the Pinkerton rule of co-conspirator liability, which statement is most accurate?

Answer: Adam can be found liable for murder if the killing was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the burglary.

The Pinkerton rule holds a co-conspirator liable for any crimes committed by other co-conspirators if those crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. A killing during a burglary is often considered a foreseeable consequence of that dangerous felony, making Adam liable for the murder even if he did not personally commit the act or specifically agree to it.

Grace hires Mark to paint her house for $3,000. Before Mark begins, Grace tells him the deal is off. Mark does nothing in response. Has Grace committed anticipatory repudiation?

Answer: Yes, and Mark may immediately sue for breach or wait until performance was due.

A clear, unequivocal repudiation before the performance date is anticipatory repudiation, entitling the non-breaching party to sue immediately or wait until the performance date.

How should a FYLSX examinee handle a fact pattern that implicates both civil and criminal liability?

Answer: Analyze civil and criminal issues separately within the same essay response

The FYLSX tests all three subjects — torts, contracts, and criminal law — and a fact pattern may raise issues under more than one body of law, each requiring separate analysis.

Driver agreed to drive Robber to a jewelry store and wait in the car while Robber committed an armed robbery. During the robbery, Robber shot and killed a security guard who tried to intervene. Driver heard the shot, panicked, and drove away, leaving Robber at the scene. As an accomplice, Driver is liable for which crimes?

Answer: Both robbery and murder, if the killing was a natural and probable consequence of the armed robbery.

As an accomplice, Driver is liable for the intended crime (robbery) and any other crimes that are a 'natural and probable consequence' of the intended crime. A killing during an armed robbery is a classic example of a foreseeable, or natural and probable, consequence. Driver's act of driving away after the fact does not constitute a valid withdrawal that would negate his liability, as he had already provided his assistance by driving Robber to the scene.

A police officer tells a suspect: 'I'll drop all charges if you rob that store for me.' The suspect complies. The suspect's best defense is:

Answer: Entrapment, if the officer induced someone not predisposed to commit the crime

Entrapment (subjective test) is available when government agents induce a person who is not predisposed to commit the offense to do so; the officer's inducement here is the paradigmatic entrapment scenario.

What is 'constructive breaking' in the context of common law burglary?

Answer: Gaining entry through fraud or threat rather than physical force

Constructive breaking occurs when the defendant gains entry through fraud, threats, or intimidation rather than actual physical force, satisfying the 'breaking' element.

Carol enters a contract with Dan under duress — Dan threatened to destroy Carol's car unless she signed. The contract is:

Answer: Voidable at Carol's option because her assent was not genuine.

Economic or physical duress makes a contract voidable by the victim because it negates genuine assent.