LEG 110 QUIZ 7
LEG 110 Quiz 7
This quiz consist of 10 multiple choice questions and covers the
material in Chapter 12
Which of the following properties would not be properly classified
as a fixture?
In which of the following situations has a mutual benefit bailment
been created?
An easement differs from a license in that
Leonard and Bernard are philatelists. In 1989, they purchased two
sets of stamps that by 1996 were worth $150,000. The brothers believed
themselves to be in possession of these stamps until 1996, when they saw an
advertisement in a nationally circulated stamp magazine offering them for sale.
The brothers brought suit against the current possessor, Robert, to recover
possession of the stamps. Robert claimed ownership because he found the stamps
inside a dresser he had purchased in a used furniture store. Who should the law
recognize as having title to the stamps?
Which of the following is not a way in which personal property can
be acquired?
Toby and Rita Kahr were owners of 28 pieces of sterling silver
that Rita’s father had given them as a wedding present 27 years previously.
Each piece of silver was engraved with the letter “K.” On April 5, 1983, the
Kahrs brought used clothing to Goodwill Industries and told Goodwill personnel
that they wanted to make a donation of clothing. Unknown to Toby and Rita, the
sterling silver, along with a wallet containing their credit cards, was
included in their sacks. The Kahrs called Goodwill two hours later, when they
realized what happened, and were told that the silver had been sold for $15 to
Karen Markland. The Kahrs alleged that the silver had a value of $3,791. The
Kahrs brought a replevin action against Goodwill and Markland to recover the
silver.
The Adams own property that lies at the end of the runway of the
municipal airport. The city has informed the Adams that they must keep their
trees shorter than 30 feet high and has compensated them for this. This
requirement is a(n)
A mutual benefit bailment exists when a person
Charles Collins and Bethany Guggenheim began living together in
1977. They were not married to each other. Bethany was recently divorced and
had two children from her prior marriage. As part of the property settlement,
she had received title to a 68acre farm and Charles, Bethany, and the children
moved there in 1979. They intended to restore the farmhouse (circa 1740).
Charles and Bethany jointly became liable for and made payments on a bank
mortgage loan, insurance, and property taxes. They maintained a joint checking
account to pay for joint expenses as well as individual checking accounts. They
jointly purchased a tractor and other equipment—Charles paid twothirds of the
cost, and Bethany onethird. Charles also invested $8,000 of his money in
additional equipment and improvements for the farm. For several years they
jointly operated a small business that made no profit. Despite Charles’s
contributions, the title to the farm remained at all times with Bethany. The
parties experienced personal difficulties, and when they could not reconcile
their differences, they permanently separated in 1986. During their
cohabitation period, Charles contributed approximately $55,000 and Bethany
$44,500 to the farm. Charles filed suit seeking the recognition of his rights
in the property. Which statement is true?
The Yorks, plaintiffs, participated in an in vitro fertilization
program at the defendant’s clinic. Five of the six eggs fertilized at the
clinic were transferred to Mrs. York’s uterus, although she was unable to
carry any of the prezygotes to term. After the Yorks moved to California, they
requested that the sixth prezygote be transferred to an institution in
California. The defendant refused. Which of the following statements is true?
No comments:
Post a Comment