Mac and Rhamad signed a business contract with a clause that provides that if a dispute arises they must submit to binding arbitration to resolve the dispute. After they had been doing business together for a year, a dispute arose under the terms of the contract. Rather than submit to arbitration, Mac filed a lawsuit against Rhamad. Most likely the court will:

A. Hear the lawsuit because Mac cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration; he is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial if he requests a trial.

B. Conduct a bench trial, then order a remedy without compelling Mac to submit to arbitration or to a jury trial.

C. Compel Mac to submit to arbitration to resolve the dispute.

D. Hear the lawsuit in a trial, then compel Mac to submit to arbitration, if Mac is not satisfied with the trial decision.

10. Nat signed a two-year contract to play soccer for the Scores, for $100,000 per game. During the second year of his contract, and just before a big game, Nat demanded that the team owner pay him an additional $5000 per game on his contract, starting with the current game. The owner reluctantly agreed to the new contract terms because Nat was the team's leading scorer. At the end of the season, Nat demanded the additional $5000 per game; the owner refused to pay. What best describes the new contract between Nat and the owner?

A. It is unenforceable because the owner agreed to Nat's contract terms under economic duress.

B. It is unenforceable because both parties did not give new legal consideration for the new contract.

C. It is enforceable because both parties gave legal consideration for the new contract.

D. It is enforceable because under the UCC rules, all contract modifications are valid if the parties consent.

11. Roxy, while driving through Wyoming to her home in Montana, accidentally lost control of her car and drove it through a window into a store owned by Colt. Colt sued Roxy in a Wyoming court for damages to his store. Will the Wyoming court likely be able to exercise jurisdiction over Roxy?

A. no, because Wyoming has no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot exercise its long arm statute only in cases involving automobile accidents.

B. no, because Wyoming has no in personam jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot justify minimum contacts in this case.

C. yes, Wyoming can exercise in personam jurisdiction in this case because any state court has personal jurisdiction in every diversity of citizenship case.

D. yes, because Wyoming can assert in personam jurisdiction over Roxy under the minimum contacts test.

12. Assume a salesperson intentionally made one of the following statements - knowing that the statement was false - to a customer considering a purchase. Which statement could create liability for fraudulent misrepresentation if the customer made the purchase?

A. "In my opinion, this car is in flawless mechanical condition."

B. "This crane will probably lift about 10,000 pounds."

C. "This car is a real gem."

D. "This is an original painting by the artist, Pablo Picasso."

13. Buildings-R- Us (BRU), a construction company, was hired to blast a hole for a new building's foundation. A box of dynamite, sitting on the construction site, ready for use in the blasting, spontaneously exploded and injured 2 passing motorists. If the motorists sue BRU, identify the likely result. BRU will be held:

A. Not liable under strict liability because BRU had not yet actually ignited the dynamite.

B. Not liable under any legal doctrine as it was not foreseeable that the dynamite would spontaneously explode.

C. Liable under negligence because dynamite is abnormally dangerous.

D. Liable under strict liability because dynamite is abnormally dangerous.

14. Kim carelessly parked her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolled down the hill and knocked down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire that spread to a barn several yards away. The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence?

A. Yes, because Kim was negligent in parking the car.

B. Yes, because Kim set in motion the chain of events that resulted in damage to Ray's car, even though Kim did not directly hit the car.

C. No, because of the unforeseeable intervening force doctrine.

D. No, regardless of Kim's negligence in parking the car as her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and harm that occurred to Ray.

15. Lee sued Don in negligence. Li's losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Lee is found to be contributory negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Lee like recover from Don?

A. None.

B. $100,000.

C. $100,000 minus the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Lee was responsible.

D. $100,000 minus the percentage of fault for which Lee was responsible, so long as Lee was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries.