Jack and Jo, residents of Colorado, were hiking in Nevada when a

dog being walked by its owner, Will, bit Jo causing injury. Jack wants Jo to sue Will, a resident of Montana, but Jo does not want to incur the cost of a lawsuit. Identify which of the following best illustrates Jack’s legal right to sue in this case.

A. Jack has standing to sue Will, but only in federal court since Colorado, Nevada and Montana state courts all meet the minimum contacts test for jurisdiction.
B. Jack has standing to sue Will, but only in Nevada because neither Colorado nor Montana meets the minimum contacts test for jurisdiction.
C. Jack does not have standing to sue Will in Nevada, Colorado or Montana.
D. Jack does not have standing to sue Will because he is not a resident of Nevada where the injury to Jo occurred.
Nat signed a two-year contract to play soccer for the Scores, for $100,000 per game. During the second year of his contract, and just before a big game, Nat demanded that the team owner pay him an additional $5000 per game on his contract, starting with the current game. The owner reluctantly agreed to the new contract terms because Nat was the team’s leading scorer. At the end of the season, Nat demanded the additional $5000 per game; the owner refused to pay. What best describes the new contract between Nat and the owner?

A. It is unenforceable because the owner agreed to Nat’s contract terms under economic duress.
B. It is unenforceable because both parties did not give new legal consideration for the new contract.
C. It is enforceable because both parties gave legal consideration for the new contract.
D. It is enforceable because under the UCC rules, all contract modifications are valid if the parties consent.

Roxy, while driving through Wyoming to her home in Montana, accidentally lost control of her car and drove it through a window into a store owned by Colt. Colt sued Roxy in a Wyoming court for damages to his store.
Will the Wyoming court likely be able to exercise jurisdiction over Roxy?
A. no, because Wyoming has no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot exercise its long arm statute only in cases involving automobile accidents.
B. no, because Wyoming has no in personam jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot justify minimum contacts in this case.
C. yes, Wyoming can exercise in personam jurisdiction in this case because any state court has personal jurisdiction in every diversity of citizenship case.
D. yes, because Wyoming can assert in personam jurisdiction over Roxy under the minimum contacts test.