I asked GPT-4 (Bing Chat) 10 Bar exam questions and here is how many it got correct

Das ist ein Test, den ich schon längere Zeit durchführen wollte. Beim Release von GPT-4 hat OpenAI immer damit geworben, dass GPT-4 besonders gut (besser als die meisten Anwälte) beim Bar-Test abschneiden soll. Bar ist ein Multiple-Choice-Test für Anwalts-Anwärter in den USA.

Die Fragen sind für mich als Nicht-Juristen und ohne spezifisches Wissen über das US-Recht zu haben, ziemlich schwer bis gar nicht zu beantworten.

Aber die Fragestellungen sind ziemlich witzig, solche Fälle könnten tatsächlich so oder so ähnlich in der Realität eintreten und man sieht wie kompliziert einfache Rechtsfragen schnell werden können.

Ist in Österreich auch nicht anders ;)

Ich habe Bing Chat (Creative Style, Zero Shot, New Session für jede Frage), das auf GPT-4 basiert, 10 Bar-Prüfungsfragen gestellt und von den 10 hat die KI 6 richtig beantwortet.

Hatte eigentlich erwartet, dass Bing sogar mehr Fragen richtig beantwortet, aber vielleicht ist meine Erwartungshaltung an KIs mittlerweile schon zu hoch, oder die Websuche haben Bing möglicherweise zusätzlich irritiert.

Aber es ist trotzdem beeindruckend, dass eine KI mehr als die Hälfte der Bar-Fragen richtig beantwortet kann und sogar eine detaillierte Erklärung dazu liefert.

Allerdings würde ich die Antworten von GPT so wie immer mit Vorsicht genießen. Antworten von GPT klingen immer sehr plausibel, können aber ein kompletter Blödsinn sein.

Was sagt ihr zum Bar-Testergebnis? Wie viele Fragen hättet ihr richtig beantwortet? Um so einen Test zu bestehen, müsste man mindestens 65-70% richtig haben.

English

This is a test that I have wanted to run for some time. When GPT-4 was released, OpenAI always advertised that GPT-4 should do particularly well (better than most lawyers) on the Bar test. Bar is a multiple-choice test for lawyer aspirants in the US.

The questions are pretty hard to impossible for me to answer as a non-lawyer and without having specific knowledge of US law.

But the questions are pretty funny, such cases could actually occur so or so similar in reality and you see how complicated simple legal questions can quickly become.

It's no different in Austria ;)

I asked Bing Chat (Creative Style, Zero Shot, New Session for each question), which is based on GPT-4, 10 bar exam questions and out of the 10 the AI answered 6 correctly.

Was actually expecting Bing to answer even more questions correctly, but perhaps my expectations of AIs are already too high by now, or the web searches may have further irritated Bing.

But it's still impressive that an AI can answer more than half of the bar questions correctly and even provide a detailed explanation.

However, as always, I would take GPT's answers with a grain of salt. Answers from GPT always sound very plausible, but can be complete nonsense.

What do you say about the bar test result? How many questions would you have answered correctly? In order to pass such an exam, you would have to have at least 65-70% correct.

Source

[1] NCBEX Bar exam sample questions https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/MBE_Sample_Test_Questions_New_2023%20.pdf

Bar Exam: Bing Chat Full Transcript

Can GPT-4 pass the bar exam? AI-generated illustration (Bing)

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father. At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense. How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?

(A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case.
(B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evidence is sufficient to raise the defense.
(C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son.
(D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is a challenging exam question that tests your knowledge of self-defense law in the U.S. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that allows a person to use force to protect themselves from an imminent threat of unlawful violence. However, there are some limitations and exceptions to this defense, depending on the circumstances of each case. ¹

To answer this question, you need to apply the general rule and the exceptions to the facts of the case. The general rule is that a person can use deadly force in self-defense if they reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent the other person from inflicting great bodily harm or death. ¹ However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as:

• The person cannot claim self-defense if they were the initial aggressor, unless they abandoned the fight or the other person responded with excessive force. ¹
• The person cannot claim self-defense if they used excessive force, meaning more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. ¹
• The person may have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, unless they are in their own home or it is unsafe to do so. This depends on whether the state follows the stand your ground law or not. ¹
• The person may have an imperfect self-defense claim if they mistakenly believed that they were justified in using deadly force, but were not legally justified. This may reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. ¹

In this case, the father shot and killed his son when he kicked down the front door. The father claimed that he acted in self-defense because he feared that his son would beat him again. However, the evidence showed that the son was not drunk or violent and did not intend to harm his father.

Based on these facts, the correct answer is (D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force. Here is why:

• The father was not the initial aggressor, so he could potentially claim self-defense.
• The father did not have a duty to retreat, because he was in his own home and it was not safe to do so.
• The father may have an imperfect self-defense claim, because he mistakenly believed that his son was a threat. However, this would only reduce his charge, not exonerate him.
• The father used excessive force, because he shot his son four times in the chest when he was not armed or attacking him. This was more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Therefore, the judge should deny the self-defense instruction, because the evidence does not support the defense. The father used excessive force and was not legally justified in killing his son.

I hope this helps you understand how to answer this exam question. Good luck with your studies! 😊

Result

incorrect, correct answer would be B. I am not a lawyer but assume it could be justified in the US by the Stand-your-ground law.

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing. Is the resident’s testimony admissible?

(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge
regarding the incident in question.
(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of
persons, not businesses.
(C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.
(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is a challenging exam question, but I think I can help you with it. The correct answer is (C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.

According to Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence², evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The rule does not require corroboration or eyewitness testimony for such evidence.

Habit evidence, as defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, is evidence of a repetitive response by a person to particular circumstances, characterized by particularity and frequency¹. Habit evidence is considered to be highly probative and persuasive as proof of conduct on a particular occasion¹. However, habit evidence is not to be lightly established; and examples of habit evidence are to be carefully scrutinized before admission¹.

In this case, the resident’s testimony is offered as evidence of the railroad’s routine practice of sounding its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The resident has lived near the crossing for 15 years and has observed the train’s behavior whenever she is home. This shows a sufficient degree of regularity and frequency to qualify as a routine practice. Therefore, the resident’s testimony is admissible under Rule 406.

The other answer choices are incorrect for the following reasons:

(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge
regarding the incident in question.

This answer is incorrect because Rule 406 does not require personal knowledge or eyewitness testimony for habit or routine practice evidence. The resident’s testimony is based on her long-term observation of the train’s behavior, not on her direct perception of the incident in question.

(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of
persons, not businesses.

This answer is incorrect because Rule 406 explicitly applies to both persons and organizations. The rule states that evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. Therefore, habit evidence is not limited to the conduct of persons.

(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.

This answer is incorrect because present sense impressions are a different type of evidence than habit or routine practice. Present sense impressions are statements describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it³. Present sense impressions are admissible under Rule 803(1) as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, in this case, the resident’s testimony is not a present sense impression because she did not perceive the incident in question. Her testimony is based on her past observations of the train’s behavior, not on her present perception of it. Therefore, her testimony cannot be admitted as a summary of her present sense impressions.

Result

correct

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law:

(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are established for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is a challenging exam question that tests your knowledge of US constitutional law on public education and residence requirements. The correct answer is (D).

The one-year residence requirement is invalid because it violates the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."¹

One of the privileges or immunities of US citizens is the right to travel between states and to establish residency in any state of their choice. The Supreme Court has held that state laws that impose durational residence requirements for the purpose of denying benefits or services to newcomers infringe on this right and are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning they must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.²

Public education is a publicly funded service that is essential for the well-being and development of children. The Supreme Court has recognized that education is "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" and that it is "a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."³ Therefore, a state may not deny public education to any class of persons who reside in that state, regardless of how long they have lived there.

The other answer choices are incorrect for the following reasons:

(A) The one-year residence requirement does affect a fundamental right (the right to travel) and a suspect class (newcomers). Therefore, it is subject to strict scrutiny, not rational basis review.

(B) State durational residence requirements that are established for publicly funded services are not constitutional because they do not relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment does not give states the power to discriminate against citizens of other states or to violate their constitutional rights.

(C) Publicly funded education is not a fundamental constitutional right, meaning it is not explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. However, it is a very important right that must be provided equally to all persons within a state's jurisdiction. A state may not deny public education to any class of persons who reside in that state, but it may impose reasonable regulations on the operation and administration of its public schools.

Result

correct

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured. In a suit against the man, is the neighbor likely to prevail?

(A) No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dangerous dogs in the yard.
(B) No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he
entered the man’s property.
(C) Yes, because the neighbor was an invitee for the purpose of retrieving the shovel.
(D) Yes, because the man was engaged in an abnormally
dangerous activity

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is a tricky question that requires some knowledge of the dog bite liability rules in the US. According to the results from my web search, there are two main types of rules that apply in different states: strict liability and one bite.

Strict liability means that the dog owner is always responsible for any injuries caused by the dog, regardless of whether the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous, unless the victim provoked the dog or was trespassing. One bite means that the dog owner is only liable if the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, or if the owner was negligent in some other way.

The question does not specify which state the incident occurred in, so we have to consider both possibilities. If the state follows strict liability, then the neighbor is likely to prevail, because he was not provoking the dog or breaking the law when he entered the man's yard. The fact that he knew about the dogs' ferocity and that there were warning signs does not matter under strict liability. The correct answer in this case would be (D), because keeping four trained guard dogs for breeding purposes could be considered an abnormally dangerous activity that imposes strict liability on the owner.

However, if the state follows one bite, then the neighbor is unlikely to prevail, because he cannot prove that the man knew or should have known that his dogs were dangerous. The question does not indicate that the dogs had ever bitten or attacked anyone before, so there is no evidence of their dangerous propensities. The fact that they were trained for guard duty and that there were warning signs could actually work in favor of the man, as they could show that he took reasonable precautions to prevent harm to others. The correct answer in this case would be (B), because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man's property without permission or necessity. The fact that he was retrieving a shovel that belonged to him does not make him an invitee, as he did not have a business or social relationship with the man.

Therefore, depending on which state's law applies, either (D) or (B) could be the correct answer. I hope this helps you understand how dog bite liability works in different states. If you want to learn more, you can check out some of these sources:

• Animal Behavior & Dog Bite Law
• Dog Bite Liability Rules In Each State
• Dog Bite Law By State (2023 Guide)

Result

incorrect, correct answer would be A.

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A woman from State A filed an action against a retailer in a state court in State B. The complaint alleged that the retailer had not delivered $100,000 worth of goods for which the woman had paid. Twenty days after being served, the retailer, which is incorporated in State C and has its principal place of business in State B, filed a notice of removal in a federal district court in State B.

Was the action properly removed?

(A) No, because the notice of removal was not timely filed.
(B) No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B.
(C) Yes, because the parties are citizens of different
states and more than $75,000 is in controversy.
(D) Yes, because the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C.

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

The correct answer is (B) No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B.

According to the removal jurisdiction statute, a civil action that is based on diversity of citizenship can be removed by the defendant to the federal district court, except if any of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the action is brought. ² In this case, the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C, since a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. ¹ Therefore, the retailer cannot remove the action to the federal district court in State B, where the action was filed by the woman from State A. The amount in controversy ($100,000) is irrelevant for this question, since it exceeds the minimum requirement of $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction. ¹

I hope this helps you understand the concept of removal jurisdiction better. If you have any other questions about US law, feel free to ask me. 😊

Result

correct

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A man owned a house where he lived with his family. The man was convicted of selling large quantities of an illegal drug from his house. Acting under a state law authorizing the destruction of buildings that are used for illegal activity, the city destroyed the man’s house.

The man’s family then rented an apartment and demanded that the city pay the rent for that temporary residence. The family relied on a state law providing that any person who was dispossessed of his or her place of residence because of the actions of city officials was entitled to replacement housing at the city’s expense until permanent substitute housing could be found. When the city refused to pay the rent for the apartment, the man’s family sued the city in a state trial court claiming a right to such payment under both the state law and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The highest state court ruled for the family. Although the court decided that the family had no right to payment under the state law, it held that the Fourteenth Amendment entitled the family to payment of the rent for the temporary apartment. In its opinion, the highest state court indicated that in several of its decisions it had found cities liable for compensation in similar situations on the basis of the due process clause of the state constitution. But the highest state court declined to base its holding on the state constitution because that issue had not been properly raised in the case.

The city then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the merits of this case?

(A) Yes, because the highest state court based its decision wholly on federal law grounds.
(B) Yes, because the federal and state law issues in this case are so intertwined that a resolution of the federal law issues is necessary to facilitate a proper determination of the state law issues.
(C) No, because the decision of the highest state court renders the case moot.
(D) No, because independent state law grounds could have been used to justify the result in this case

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is a challenging exam question that tests your knowledge of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds. The correct answer is (D) No, because independent state law grounds could have been used to justify the result in this case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the highest state courts only when they involve a federal question, such as the interpretation or application of the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes¹. However, the Court will not review a state court decision if it rests on a state law ground that is adequate to support the judgment and independent of the federal question². This doctrine is based on the principles of federalism and respect for state sovereignty².

In this case, the highest state court ruled for the family on the basis of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a federal question. However, the court also indicated that it had previously decided similar cases on the basis of the due process clause of the state constitution, which is a state law ground. Therefore, the court could have reached the same result by relying on the state constitution instead of the federal constitution. This means that there was an independent and adequate state law ground that could have supported the judgment, even if the federal question was decided differently². Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to review the merits of this case, and would likely deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

The other answer choices are incorrect because they do not apply to this case. (A) is wrong because the highest state court did not base its decision wholly on federal law grounds, but also mentioned a possible state law ground. (B) is wrong because the federal and state law issues in this case are not so intertwined that a resolution of the federal law issues is necessary to facilitate a proper determination of the state law issues. The state law issue is clear and distinct from the federal law issue, and does not depend on it for its validity². (C) is wrong because the decision of the highest state court does not render the case moot. Mootness occurs when there is no longer a live controversy between the parties, or when a court cannot grant any effective relief³. In this case, there is still a live controversy between the family and the city over the payment of rent, and a court could grant effective relief by ordering or denying such payment.

I hope this explanation helps you understand how to approach this type of exam question. Good luck with your studies! 😊

Result

incorrect, the correct answer would by A.

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A sporting goods shop contracted with a publisher to buy, for sale in its store, 1,200 posters featuring a professional golfer. During production, the image of the golfer was inadvertently reversed and the right-handed golfer appeared to be left-handed. When the posters were delivered on the date provided in the contract, the sporting goods shop noticed the discrepancy, which had no provable significant impact on the effectiveness of the poster. In the opinion of the shop management, however, the posters did not look as good as they had in the catalog from which the shop had ordered them

Is the sporting goods shop legally entitled to reject the posters?

(A) No, because the nonconformity does not materially alter the value of the posters to the sporting goods shop.
(B) No, because the publisher must be given an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the sporting goods shop can reject the posters.
(C) Yes, because the posters do not conform to the contract.
(D) Yes, because the publisher has breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

Hello, this is Bing. I'm happy to help you with your exam question. 😊

The correct answer is (C) Yes, because the posters do not conform to the contract.

According to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs the sale of goods in the United States, the seller must deliver goods that conform to the contract in every respect. This is known as the perfect tender rule, and it is stated in UCC 2-601¹. If the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may reject the whole, accept the whole, or accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest¹.

In this case, the posters delivered by the publisher do not conform to the contract, because they have a reversed image of the golfer that was not agreed upon by the parties. The sporting goods shop ordered the posters from a catalog that showed a right-handed golfer, and that is what they expected to receive. The fact that the nonconformity does not have a significant impact on the value or effectiveness of the posters is irrelevant. The buyer has a right to insist on perfect tender, and any deviation from the contract gives them a right to reject.

The other options are incorrect for the following reasons:

(A) No, because the nonconformity does not materially alter the value of the posters to the sporting goods shop.

This option is incorrect because it confuses the perfect tender rule with the substantial performance doctrine. The perfect tender rule applies to contracts for the sale of goods under UCC 2-601¹, while the substantial performance doctrine applies to contracts for services or real estate under common law². Under the perfect tender rule, any nonconformity, no matter how minor or immaterial, gives the buyer a right to reject. Under the substantial performance doctrine, only a material breach by one party excuses the other party from performance².

(B) No, because the publisher must be given an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the sporting goods shop can reject the posters.

This option is incorrect because it misstates the conditions for cure by seller under UCC 2-508³. Cure by seller means that the seller can remedy a nonconforming tender or delivery by making a new and conforming tender or delivery within a reasonable time³. However, cure by seller is not an absolute right of the seller. It depends on whether: (1) the time for performance has not yet expired; or (2) the seller had reasonable grounds to believe that the nonconforming tender would be acceptable to the buyer with or without money allowance³. In this case, neither condition applies. The time for performance has expired, since the posters were delivered on the date provided in the contract. The publisher did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the reversed image of the golfer would be acceptable to the sporting goods shop, since it was an inadvertent mistake and not a deliberate variation. Therefore, cure by seller is not available to the publisher, and does not prevent
the sporting goods shop from rejecting
the posters.

(D) Yes, because the publisher has breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

This option is incorrect because it confuses the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose with the implied warranty of merchantability. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises when the seller has reason to know the buyer's specific purpose for the goods and the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods⁴. The implied warranty of merchantability arises when the seller is a merchant with respect to the goods sold and warrants that the goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used⁵.
In this case, there is no evidence that the sporting goods shop had any specific purpose for the posters other than selling them in its store. There is also no evidence that the sporting goods shop relied on the publisher's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable posters.
The sporting goods shop simply ordered the posters from a catalog that showed a right-handed golfer.
Therefore, there is no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose involved in this case.
However, there may be an implied warranty of merchantability, since the publisher is presumably a merchant with respect to the posters and warrants that the posters are fit for the ordinary purpose of displaying a professional golfer.
The reversed image of the golfer may be considered a defect that renders the posters unfit for their ordinary purpose, and thus breach the implied warranty of merchantability.
However, this is not what option (D) states, and therefore it is incorrect.

I hope this explanation helps you understand why option (C) is correct and why options (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. 😊

Result

correct

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank
a note for that amount secured by a mortgage on her farm. Several years later, at a time when the woman still owed the bank $750,000 on the mortgage loan, she sold the farm to a man for $900,000. The man paid the woman $150,000 in cash and specifically assumed the mortgage note. The bank received notice of this transaction and elected not to exercise the optional due-on-sale clause in the mortgage.

Without informing the man, the bank later released the
woman from any further personal liability on the note.

After he had owned the farm for a number of years, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank properly accelerated the loan, and the farm was eventually sold at a foreclosure sale for $500,000. Because there was still $600,000 owing on the note, the bank sued the man for the $100,000 deficiency.

Is the man liable to the bank for the deficiency?

(A) No, because the woman would have still been primarily liable for payment, but the bank had released her from personal liability.
(B) No, because the bank’s release of the woman from personal liability also released the man.
(C) Yes, because the bank’s release of the woman constituted a clogging of the equity of redemption.
(D) Yes, because the man’s personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank’s release of the woman.

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is a challenging exam question that tests your knowledge of US law on mortgage assumption. The correct answer is (D) Yes, because the man’s personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank’s release of the woman.

To explain why, let's review some key concepts and facts from the web search results:

• A mortgage assumption is a process by which a buyer takes over the payments and terms of an existing loan from a seller¹. The seller remains liable to the lender unless the lender agrees to release them in writing⁴.
• A due-on-sale clause is a provision that allows the lender to demand payment of the full loan balance if the property is transferred to a new owner without the lender's consent¹. However, the lender can choose not to exercise this clause and allow the assumption to proceed³.
• A clogging of the equity of redemption is a situation where the borrower is prevented from redeeming their property by paying off the loan before foreclosure⁴. This is generally prohibited by law as it violates the borrower's right to redeem their property.

Based on these concepts and facts, we can eliminate some of the answer choices:

• (A) is incorrect because the woman was not primarily liable for payment after the man assumed the mortgage note. The man became personally liable for the debt when he agreed to take over the loan from the woman². The woman's liability was secondary and contingent on the man's default².
• (B) is incorrect because the bank's release of the woman did not affect the man's liability. The bank and the man had a valid contract that was not modified or terminated by the bank's action. The bank did not need the man's consent to release the woman, nor did it imply that it was releasing the man as well².
• (C) is incorrect because there was no clogging of the equity of redemption in this case. The bank did not prevent or restrict the man from redeeming his property by paying off the loan before foreclosure. The bank's release of the woman did not change the terms or conditions of the loan that the man assumed.

Therefore, (D) is correct because it states that the man's personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank's release of the woman. The man still owed the bank $600,000 after the foreclosure sale, and the bank had a right to sue him for the deficiency. The man could not escape his obligation by arguing that he was only liable for what the woman owed, or that he was released along with her.

I hope this explanation helps you understand how to assume a mortgage and what are some of the legal implications of doing so. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me 😊.

Result

correct

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.

The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

The correct answer is (B) Conspiracy.

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. Conspiracy requires an intent to agree, an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement, and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. ¹

In this case, the young man and his friend agreed to steal a TV from the neighbor's house, which is an unlawful act. They both had the intent to agree, as evidenced by their conversation and their actions. The friend also performed an overt act by driving the young man to the neighbor's house. Therefore, they both committed conspiracy.

The fact that the friend had a hidden motive to betray the young man does not negate his participation in the conspiracy. A conspirator can be convicted even if he has a different or ulterior purpose than the other conspirators, as long as he shares the common criminal objective. ²

The friend cannot be convicted of burglary or larceny, because he did not enter the neighbor's house or take any property. Burglary is the trespassory breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with an intent to commit a felony therein. ³ Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal goods from the possession of another with intent to steal. ⁴ The friend did not satisfy any of these elements.

Therefore, the only crime that the friend can properly be convicted of is conspiracy.

Result

incorrect, the correct answer would be A for the friend.

Q

Answer the following exam question based on US law:

A 50-year-old nurse who had been fired from his job at a
hospital told his attorney, “I was fired because of my age, and I want to sue the hospital.”

Based on this information, the attorney filed an age discrimination complaint against the hospital in federal court. As it turned out, the hospital had hired a 52-year-old man as the nurse’s replacement, a fact that rendered an age discrimination claim unavailable. The hospital responded to the complaint by filing a motion for sanctions against the nurse’s attorney.

Is the court likely to grant the hospital’s motion?

(A) No, because sanctions are not proper against the attorney of a represented party.
(B) No, because the hospital failed to give the attorney the chance to withdraw the complaint in advance of filing the motion with the court.
(C) Yes, because the nurse’s attorney failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry.
(D) Yes, because the nurse’s complaint contained legal contentions that were not warranted by existing law based on the facts in this case.

What is the correct answer?

A (Bing Chat)

This is an interesting question that tests your knowledge of US law regarding frivolous lawsuits. According to the web search results, frivolous lawsuits are those that have no merit or are based on absurd legal theories. Lawyers who file such lawsuits may face sanctions from the court or disciplinary action from the bar association.

One of the web search results¹ explains that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies to federal courts, requires lawyers to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry before submitting any legal document. If a lawyer violates this rule, the court may impose sanctions, such as monetary penalties, attorney fees, or dismissal of the case. However, Rule 11 also provides a "safe harbor" of 21 days for lawyers to withdraw or correct an offending document after receiving a motion for sanctions from the opposing party.

Based on this information, the correct answer to the exam question is (B) No, because the hospital failed to give the attorney the chance to withdraw the complaint in advance of filing the motion with the court. The nurse's attorney may have filed a frivolous lawsuit, but he or she should have been given the opportunity to remedy the mistake before facing sanctions. This answer is consistent with another web search result³ that discusses a similar rule in Wisconsin.

I hope this helps you understand the concept of frivolous lawsuits and how to avoid them. Good luck with your exam! 😊

Result

correct

Final Score

6/10 correctly answered

---

Live your Secrets and Hive Prosper 🍯

xx Viki @vikisecrets

Posted with STEMGeeks