Business Law (MGMT 260)

Spring 2021
Ali Sultan
QUIZ I

Questions: 20 (worth 1 point each)

Total Points: 20
Time: 45 minutes
Instructions: Be attentive and read each question carefully before answering it.
Good Luck!

THE HONOR CODE

“I have not sought, received or given help during this examination.”

Roll No: Signature:

_______________________________________________________________________

Questions 1 & 2
When Denton heard that his neighbor, Prout, intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser,
Denton told Prout that Prout and his wife and children would meet with “accidents” if he did so.
Prout then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the house off the
market.
Question 1
If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for assault, Prout will:
A. Recover, if Denton intended to place Prout in fear of physical harm.
B. Recover, because Denton’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
C. Not recover, if Denton took no action that threatened immediate physical harm to Prout.
D. Not recover, because Prout’s action removed any threat of harmful force.
Question 2
If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Prout will:
A. Recover, if Prout suffered severe emotional distress as a consequence of Denton’s conduct.
B. Recover, because Denton intended to frighten Prout.
C. Not recover, because Denton made no threat of immediate physical harm to Prout or his
family.
D. Not recover, if Prout suffered no physical harm as a consequence of Denton’s conduct.

1
 Question 3
An owner of a pizza and Italian foods restaurant opens a new location on a street where another
owner has a burger restaurant. It seems like business is slow for the pizza place owner and he
eyes up his competitor, the burger man, as the reason. The pizza owner starts to make false
statements about the burger restaurant and its inferior ingredients, which he says have been
causing ptomaine poisoning in some of the customers. When burger joint owner loses customers
and business income to pizza place owner, can he sue for conversion?

A. Yes, because the pizza owner interfered with his right of peaceful enjoyment and disrupted
his business activities.
B. Yes, conversion is an intentional tort and the pizza owner acted intentionally to convert and
did convert part of the burger business.
C. No, because conversion consists of appropriating another's real property.
D. No, because there was no interference with his ownership or right of possession to his
personal property.

Question 4
A city ordinance required that all dogs be leashed when taken outside of an enclosed area. Bee
often allowed her dog, Bop, to run loose in front of Bee’s house. One day, when Bop was
running loose, Dina was driving her car up the street in front of Bee’s house. The day was clear
and sunny and Dina was driving carefully at a speed somewhat below the posted limit. Bop
dashed out into the street from between two parked cars. Dina alertly applied her brakes, but
could not avoid striking Bop. Pris, driving another vehicle behind Dina, promptly applied her
brakes as soon as she saw the red lights glow on the rear of Dina’s vehicle. However, Pris’s
vehicle struck the rear of Dina’s vehicle. Both of the vehicles suffered damage and both drivers
suffered minor injuries which required X-rays and other medical attention.
If Pris sues Dina for her vehicle damage and personal injuries, Pris will:
A. Prevail, because the ordinance was designed to prevent dogs from being hit by cars.
B. Prevail, because Dina was a proximate cause of the accident.
C. Not prevail, because Dina obeyed the traffic laws.
D. Not prevail, unless Dina herself was negligent.
Questions 5 & 6

Sam Starr, a detective, recently retired from the St. Paul, Minnesota, Police Department. Starr
had been instrumental in solving many instrumental crimes in the Twin Cities area and had
received many commendations from his own police superiors, the Mayor of St. Paul, and
national police associations. A year after Starr’s retirement to Florida, he turned on his television
set and Zeta Broadcasting System (“ZBS”) was presenting a docudrama entitled “To Nab a

2
Crook.” At the beginning of the show, Starr saw among the credits, “This story is based upon the
life of Detective Sam Starr of the St. Paul, Minnesota, Police Department; however, this is a
dramatization and in order to enhance the dramatic effect of the show as entertainment, not every
event depicted in this show actually happened as portrayed by the professional actors in the
show. Once the show was over, Starr was furious. Some parts of the show dealt fairly accurately
with some of the crimes Starr had helped solve in Minnesota, but other parts under the rubric of
“enhancing the dramatic effect,” portrayed “Detective Pat Smith” (the Starr-like character) as
being involved in several James Bond-type sexual escapades.

Question 5

If Starr sues ZBS for invasion of privacy, who will prevail?

A. Starr, because his name was appropriated by ZBS for a commercial purpose.
B. Starr, because the seclusion of his retirement has been upset.
C. Starr, because he has been portrayed in a false light.
D. ZBS, if the show as a whole was complimentary to Starr.

Question 6

Assume for purposes of this question only that the court finds that ZBS had defamed Starr. To
what damages would Starr be entitled?

A. Nominal damages only, unless Starr can show actual pecuniary loss.
B. General damages, even without actual proof of injury.
C. Only damages based on competent evidence of actual injury.

Question 7

A homeowner buys a new leaf blower and is so impressed with its power that he gets carried
away and blows large amounts of his work onto the next door neighbor's yard. In addition to
leaves, he also blew large amounts of pest-infested plant debris onto the neighbor's property. The
material has accumulated into large, unsightly piles and caused damage to the neighbor's healthy
plants. He has to pay workers to haul the material away and he incurs expenses to replace
infected perennials. The neighbor sues for the tort of trespass. The homeowner files a motion to
dismiss because the neighbor cannot prove that homeowner acted with an intent to trespass or to
do harm. Will the court grant the motion to dismiss?

A. No, because the infected debris constituted an abnormally dangerous condition and
homeowner could be held strictly liable for the trespass.
B. No, because trespass is based on an intentional act of entering the land or sending something
onto the land, and the actor does not have to intend harm to be liable for the tort.

3
C. Yes, because the homeowner had no practical way of controlling where the material went
and he acted without malice or ill will.
D. Yes, because the homeowner expected the wind to carry the debris away and did not think
that it would accumulate on the neighbor's property.

Question 8
Plummer, a well-known politician, was scheduled to address a large crowd at a political dinner.
Just as Plummer was about to sit down at the head table, Devon pushed Plummer’s chair to one
side. As a result, Plummer fell to the floor. Plummer was embarrassed at being made to look
foolish before a large audience but suffered no physical harm.
If Plummer asserts a claim against Devon for damages because of his embarrassment, will
Plummer prevail?
A. Yes, if Devon knew that Plummer was about to sit on the chair.
B. Yes, if Devon negligently failed to notice that Plummer was about to sit on the chair.
C. No, because Plummer suffered no physical harm along with his embarrassment.
D. No, if in moving the chair Devon intended only a good-natured practical joke on Plummer.
Question 9
Pauline sought psychiatric treatment from Donald, a psychiatrist. During his treatment, which
consisted of hour-long analysis sessions twice a week, Donald, unknown to Pauline, videotaped
her. No sound recording was made of the sessions, but Donald was conducting a study on “body
language” and planned to use the videotapes in those experiments. Pauline learned that Donald
had been videotaping their analysis sessions and brought an action against him for battery.
If Pauline does not prevail, it will probably be because:
A. She did not suffer any injury as the result of Donald’s actions.
B. Donald had an implied consent to take the actions he did as part of the patient-physician
privilege.
C. She did not suffer an offensive touching.
D. Donald intended that his actions would foster medical research.
Questions 10 & 11
Linda sprained her ankle while skiing and went to the emergency clinic at Hospital. A nurse had
Linda soak her ankle in ice water to bring down the swelling, and told her to wait in the room as
the doctor would be in to check her ankle in a half hour after the swelling had gone down. Only
several minutes later, however, Myron came into her room and told her he was her doctor. In
fact, Myron was in an outpatient program at Hospital’s mental health section.
Myron proceeded to examine Linda’s hurt ankle, causing her some discomfort but no injury.
However, when he decided to bandage the ankle, Myron made the bandage too tight and Linda
was in pain. When Linda complained, Myron told her he would give her a shot that would stop

4
the pain. But Linda was afraid of shots and told Myron she would prefer pain pills instead.
Myron said that pain pills would take too long to be of any use, and started to give Linda the
shot, but the nurse came back and caught him.
Question 10
If Linda sued Myron for false imprisonment, she is most likely to:
A. Prevail, because her injuries prevented her from leaving the room without being harmed.
B. Prevail, because she would not have stayed in the room if Myron had not pretended to be a
doctor.
C. Not prevail, because Myron would have let her leave if she wanted.
D. Not prevail, because she had no reason to believe that she could not leave.
Question 11
If Linda sued Hospital for negligence, which of the following defenses would most likely show
that Hospital is not liable?
A. Linda had been told the doctor would not see her until the swelling had gone down;
therefore, she was not justified in believing Myron was a doctor.
B. Myron’s conduct was an independent intervening cause that cuts off Hospital’s liability.
C. Hospital had no reason to believe Myron would impersonate a doctor, and had otherwise
taken every precaution.
D. Linda was not really injured by anything Myron did.
Question 12
Purvis purchased a used car from Daley, a used-car dealer. Knowing them to be false, Daley
made the following statements to Purvis prior to the sale:
Statement 1: This car has never been involved in an accident.
Statement 2: This car gets 25 miles to the gallon on the open highway.
Statement 3: This is as smooth-riding a car as you can get.
If Purvis asserts a claim against Daley based on deceit, which of the following false statements
made by Daley would support Purvis’s claim?
A. Statement 1 only.
B. Statement 2 only.
C. Statements 1 and 2 only.
D. Statements 2 and 3 only.
Questions 13 & 14
Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor’s car, in Neighbor’s garage and without
his consent, when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a

5
fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si’s life and Neighbor’s car and garage.
In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned.
Question 13
If Rescuer asserts a claim against Si for personal injuries, Rescuer will:
A. Prevail, because he saved Si’s life.
B. Prevail, because Si was at fault in causing the fire.
C. Not prevail, because Rescuer knowingly assumed the risk.
D. Not prevail, because Rescuer’s action was not a foreseeable consequence of Si’s conduct.
Question 14
If Rescuer asserts a claim against Neighbor for personal injuries, Rescuer will:
A. Prevail, because he saved Neighbor’s property.
B. Prevail, because he acted reasonably in an emergency.
C. Not prevail, because Neighbor was not at fault.
D. Not prevail, because Rescuer knowingly assumed the risk.
Questions 15 & 16
Husband and Wife were going through a nasty divorce. Wife hired Patrick, a retired detective, to
spy on Husband. Patrick followed Husband to Hotel, where he saw Husband meet a woman and
go into her hotel room. Patrick checked into the adjoining room, placed an electronic listening
device on the wall, and listened to the activities of the Husband and the woman in the next room.
While Patrick was listening, a burglar broke into Patrick’s room and hit Patrick over the head
with a blackjack. As a result, Patrick was hospitalized. A state statute makes adultery a crime.
Question 15
If Patrick sues Hotel for his injuries:
A. Patrick will prevail if Hotel’s management had reason to believe the hotel room locks were
inadequate.
B. Patrick will prevail because innkeepers owe their guests a very high duty of care.
C. Hotel will prevail because the burglar was a superseding intervening cause.
D. Hotel will prevail if it was in compliance with a state statute setting minimum standards for
hotel room locks.
Question 16
If Husband sues Patrick for invasion of privacy:
A. Husband will win because he had an expectation of privacy in the woman’s hotel room.
B. Husband will win unless Patrick’s electronic eavesdropping was legal.
C. Husband will lose because adultery is illegal.
D. Husband will lose if Patrick published nothing about Husband’s activities.

6
 Question 17

A mail carrier was on a homeowner’s premises delivering the mail when he was bitten by a large
dog owned by the next door neighbor. Although the owner used due care in keeping the animal
in a securely fenced area, he knew of one prior incident where the animal got loose and bit
someone. Is the dog’s owner liable for the injuries to the mailman?

A. No, he is not liable because he used due care and was not negligent under the circumstances.
B. No, he is not liable because the man was on someone else’s property at the time of the
incident.
C. Yes, he is liable because a dog owner is always liable for any injuries caused to a third
person.
D. Yes, he is liable because an owner who knows of the dog’s dangerous propensities is strictly
liable for ensuing damages.

Question 18

Paula’s friend Roberto told her that she could use his fireside cabin for the weekend. Roberto
gave Paula instructions on how to find his cabin, but once Paula arrived at the lake, she found
that all the cabins looked very similar. Paula rechecked Roberto’s instructions and then entered
the cabin that she thought belonged to Roberto. In fact, the cabin belonged to Otto.

After Paula unpacked her luggage, she realized that the cabin was quite cold. Thus, she gathered
some wood from the woodpile and started a fire in the fireplace. Unbeknownst to Paula, the
fireplace flue was blocked and so an explosion ensued; Paula was injured by the explosion. Otto
had known that the flue was blocked, but he had not gotten around to having the problem fixed.

If Paula sues Otto for her injuries, who will prevail?

A. Paula, because Otto knew that the flue was defective.

B. Paula, because Otto had a duty to warn of the defect.
C. Otto, but only if he had no reason to anticipate that anyone would be in the cabin.
D. Otto, because he owed no duty to Paula.

Question 19

Phyllis was crossing the street at a crosswalk, but did not look both ways. As she walked, Phyllis
was hit by a car driven by Brett, and immediately afterwards, she was struck by a car driven by
Andrew. As a result of these collisions with the cars, Phyllis suffered severe injuries. Although it
was impossible to determine which portion of Phyllis’s injuries was caused by Andrew and

7
which by Brett, at the trial of Phyllis’s suit, the jury determined that Andrew was 20% negligent,
that Brett was 40% negligent, and that Phyllis was 40% negligent. It was further determined that
Phyllis had suffered $100,000 in damages.

In a pure comparative jurisdiction, how much will Phyllis recover in damages from Andrew?

A. Nothing, because Phyllis was also negligent.

B. $60,000.
C. $40,000.
D. $20,000.
D. No damages, unless Starr can prove actual malice on the part of ZBS.

Question 20
Allan invited all of his neighbors to a July 4th party in his backyard. Practically the entire
neighborhood showed up, except for Clem, who lived next door. Clem was an elderly man with a
known heart condition who chose not to participate in neighborhood social functions. That
evening, after a full day of festivities and much beer drinking, someone at the party suggested,
“We ought to set off some fireworks!” Bob, another guest, thereupon produced a large skyrocket,
which he lit. However, the skyrocket failed to climb properly and crashed into Clem’s garage,
starting a fire. Clem rushed out of his house and attempted to put out the flames, but he suffered
a heart attack and was rendered unconscious. The garage burned to the ground before the Fire
Department arrived. Fortunately, however, the firefighters were able to revive Clem, and he has
since recovered from the heart attack.
If Clem sues Bob for the damage to his garage on a theory of negligence, which of the following
arguments, if sustained by the facts, would be most helpful for Bob to avoid liability?
A. The setting off of skyrockets on July 4th is an anticipated custom in the community.
B. The skyrocket was aimed by Bob to avoid crashing into Clem’s garage.
C. The fire that started would have burned itself out but for the fact that Clem’s garage was built
out of sub-standard, highly flammable material.
D. Bob was a guest on Allan’s property and entitled to the same restricted scope of liability as
Allan.

*END OF THE QUIZ*