3 Multistate Bar Exam Practice Questions to Study

There’s no such thing as working through too many Multistate Bar Exam practice questions! Here are three more to add to your practice list. While they are not real questions taken from actual past exams, these sample questions are designed to give you a representation of what you’ll face on exam day.

Practice Question #1

A contractor wanted to bid for a lucrative project to build a small retail strip mall. To put together his bid, the contractor spoke to an electrical subcontractor. The subcontractor submitted his bid for the electrical work, which he said he could do for a total of $75,000, including parts and labor. The general contractor factored that bid into his final bid, and got the project.

About a week into the project, the electrical subcontractor told the general contractor that he’d messed up his numbers while putting together the bid. He said that there was no way he could do it for less than $90,000. The general contractor then went out and hired someone else to do the job for $80,000. He sues the subcontractor for the $10,000 difference.

What is the likely outcome?

1. Defendant (the electrical subcontractor) wins. The general contractor should have known that these bids are often inaccurate. He had no right to rely on such a bid, and should have factored in some margin as a prudent businessman.

2. Plaintiff (the general subcontractor) wins. The general contractor accepted the electrician’s bid before it was revoked. Therefore, the electrician is bound to the contract.

3. Plaintiff (the general subcontractor) wins. The general contractor had reasonably relied on the electrician’s bid in formulating his own bid. The general contractor suffered detriment that could only be remedied by enforcement of the offer.

4. Defendant (the electrical subcontractor) wins. In contract law, whenever there are substantial changes, the offer can be revoked or modified.

Practice Question #2

A home health care organization had many patients with severe mobility limitations. They needed to purchase two dozen wheelchairs with design specifications for these patients.

As the buyer for the organization researched wheelchairs, her eye was drawn to one seller’s website. This website made a number of claims about the weight that the wheelchairs could hold, their functionality, and their reliability. Relying on such claims, the buyer placed an order for two dozen wheelchairs.

When they received the chairs, it was immediately clear that they were not heavy-duty enough to meet the patients’ needs. The home health care organization (the buyer) filed a lawsuit, stating that the seller knew that the claims on their website were false, because the misrepresentations were so obvious. In fact, the web designer the seller had hired was instructed by the seller to “embellish” the facts so that the seller could sell more chairs. At trial, the plaintiff offered these claims made on the website as evidence, and the defendant objected based on hearsay.

Will the evidence be admitted?

1. Yes. This evidence is not hearsay, and is admissible as an admission.

2. Yes. This non-hearsay evidence is admissible as a prior statement.

3. No. This is hearsay and not admissible.

4. Yes. This evidence is admissible as a statement against interest.

Practice Question #3

A couple entered into an agreement to purchase a home from a seller. Unbeknownst to the couple, the seller was also the owner of a pool building company, and routinely installed pools for homes in the area.

Just before signing the purchase contract with the seller, the couple hired a different pool company to construct a pool at their future home. They were so excited that they happened to mention the pool when signing the contract to buy the home.

When the home-seller heard that they were using someone else to install the pool, he wouldn’t sell them the home unless they agreed to use his company to install the pool. He promised he could meet their specifications, finish it a month earlier, and come in 5% under budget. The couple then gave the pool contract to the home-seller.

Can the originally hired pool company sue the home-seller for his losses and win?

1. No. The contract with the originally hired pool company was not a valid contract until provided consideration by beginning to build the pool.

2. No. The home-seller had every right to enter into negotiations with the home-buyers over the contract to build the pool. It was their right to choose the best bid.

3. Yes. The original pool company can sue and win under the theory of tortious interference with a valid business opportunity.

4. Yes. The original pool company can sue the home-seller for tortious interference with contract. The home-seller knew of the previous contract, knew that it was signed and binding, yet he intentionally interfered to his own advantage.

Answers to Multistate Bar Exam Practice Questions

Question 1: #3 is Correct

Plaintiff (the general subcontractor) wins. The general contractor had reasonably relied on the electrician’s bid in formulating his own bid. The general contractor suffered detriment that could only be remedied by enforcement of the offer.

When someone makes an offer that they should reasonably expect the offeree to rely on when taking subsequent steps – whether by action or inaction – and the offeree does take those expected steps, then the offeror is bound if such binding is the sole way of avoiding injustice to the offeree.

See Restatement (2d) of Contracts 90. In order for promissory estoppel to apply there must be:

  1. a clear and definite offer,
  2. a reasonable expectation that the offer will induce reliance in the other party,
  3. actual and reasonable reliance by the offeree, and
  4. a detriment which only can be avoided by enforcement of the offer.

Question 2: #1 is Correct

Yes. This evidence is not hearsay, and is admissible as an admission.

Hearsay is defined in Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under this rule, there are two types of statements which are specified as not being hearsay in the first place: Prior Statement by Witness and Admission by Party-Opponent.

This situation is an admission by party-opponent, covered in Rule 801(d)(2). See Rule 801(d)(2)(B), which discusses “a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth…” Here, the seller issued knowingly false statements to its potential customers. These statements are not hearsay under the rule since they are an admission. Therefore, they are admissible.

Question 3: #4 is Correct

Yes. The original pool company can sue the home-seller for tortious interference with contract. The home-seller knew of the previous contract, knew that it was signed and binding, yet he intentionally interfered to his own advantage.

The intentional tort of interference with a contract must allege 4 things:

  1. a valid contract,
  2. defendant’s knowledge of the contract,
  3. defendant’s intentional interference with the contract and a resulting breach, and
  4. damages.

Here, we have all four elements. Therefore, a suit by the original pool company would likely prevail.

 
How did you do on these three Multistate Bar Exam practice questions? Continue to practice as many sample questions as you can, and good luck!

Sign up for early access to Magoosh UBE Prep!

Comments are closed.


Magoosh blog comment policy: To create the best experience for our readers, we will only approve comments that are relevant to the article, general enough to be helpful to other students, concise, and well-written! 😄 Due to the high volume of comments across all of our blogs, we cannot promise that all comments will receive responses from our instructors.

We highly encourage students to help each other out and respond to other students' comments if you can!

If you are a Premium Magoosh student and would like more personalized service from our instructors, you can use the Help tab on the Magoosh dashboard. Thanks!