Law (Professional) quiz

Choose your level

Playing needs a free account so your score can appear on the leaderboard — create one in under a minute.

Sample questions

• Congress passed a federal statute that prohibited all "indecent" and "patently offensive" broadcasts on the Internet. The purpose of the statute was to protect children from accessing pornographic materials. The law imposed a blanket prohibition on any communications that could be accessed by children and which might contain the feared material. A group of Internet publishers filed an action to have the law declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. They proved that many instances of artistic expression and non-prurient broadcasts could fall within the wide parameters of the law. The government argued that its interest in protecting children outweighed the other considerations, and that millions of parents who are now afraid to access the Internet would use the service because the new law made it safe for children. What will the Supreme Court decide?
• A landlord rented an apartment to a tenant for $250 per month in accordance with a month-to-month agreement. On September 3, the landlord mailed the following letter to the tenant:"September 2 In consideration of one dollar, receipt of which is acknowledged, I hereby give you an option for 20 days from the above date to sign a two-year lease at $225 per month, provided you pay two months' rent in advance. "The tenant received the letter on September 4, but did not read it until September 5. On September 23, the tenant telephoned the landlord and said, "I want to give you the $450 and sign the two-year lease as soon as possible. " The landlord replied, "I've change my mind. I do not want to sign a lease with you. Moreover, I want you to vacate the apartment immediately. " At no time after receiving the landlord's letter on September 4 did the tenant pay him the one-dollar consideration. Did the landlord's letter constitute an effective offer for a two-year lease?
• An owner of land entered into a month-to-month lease with a chemical company. At first, the company stored raw materials and finished products on the leased land. Later, the company began recycling chemical waste at the property. There was a substantial release of toxic chemicals into the environment. The EPA ordered a clean-up of the property against the owner and the chemical company. The landowner defended the proceedings, claiming it did not know what the chemical company was doing. What will the court decide?

Answers are revealed after you submit a quiz.