benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1452 / A married couple sued a real estate broker for misrepresentation and breach of…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A married couple sued a real estate broker for misrepresentation and breach of contract in failing to live up to promises he made regarding the couple's purchase of a residence. They claimed receiving promises from the broker that if they bought the home immediately a $15,000 rebate would be given to them at closing by the sellers. At closing, the sellers claimed no knowledge and didn't pay. At trial against the broker, the couple subpoenaed one of the broker's agents who testified that he was in a meeting with the buyers and he heard the broker make the same promise. The broker objected that the testimony was hearsay. What will the court most likely decide regarding the admissibility of the testimony?

category

law

options

  1. The testimony is admissible €” even though it is hearsay, the broker is available to be cross-examined.
  2. The testimony is admissible because the agent's statement is considered a present sense impression.
  3. The testimony is inadmissible because the agent's statement is considered hearsay within hearsay.
  4. The testimony is admissible because it is a party admission made through the party's authorized agent concerning a matter within the scope of his employment.
  5. The testimony is admissible because it is a statement made by the broker's employee during the course and within the scope of employment.
  6. The testimony is inadmissible because the agent's statement is not an exception to the hearsay rule.
  7. The testimony is admissible because it is a statement made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  8. The testimony is inadmissible because it is pure hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter that is in dispute.
  9. The testimony is inadmissible because the agent was not authorized to speak for his principal.
  10. The testimony is inadmissible because the agent's statement is considered a past recollection recorded.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1452
task_id
a74e27e9-0d6b-5afb-91cc-b2c1c8258c30
task_key
default--test--1452
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import