Equitable Override Temptation
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
15002_condemnation-lease-church-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AThe operator, because the taking of leased land through eminent domain is not a breach of the rancher's implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.
Why it's attractive
The choice states a correct legal proposition (eminent domain ≠ breach of quiet enjoyment) but the question is about who gets the condemnation award, not whether the landlord breached a warranty. The legal issue doesn't match the call.
Why it's wrong
The choice states a correct legal proposition (eminent domain ≠ breach of quiet enjoyment) but the question is about who gets the condemnation award, not whether the landlord breached a warranty. The legal issue doesn't match the call.
15002_condemnation-lease-church-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BThe operator, because otherwise the rancher would be unjustly enriched.
Why it's attractive
The facts support the intuition (landlord gets a windfall), but when a valid contract expressly governs the issue, the equitable unjust-enrichment remedy is unavailable. The lease provision controls.
Why it's wrong
The facts support the intuition (landlord gets a windfall), but when a valid contract expressly governs the issue, the equitable unjust-enrichment remedy is unavailable. The lease provision controls.
15002_condemnation-lease-church-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DThe rancher, because the condemnation superseded and canceled the lease.
Why it's attractive
This choice reaches the correct conclusion (rancher wins) but for the wrong reason. Condemnation does not automatically 'supersede and cancel' a lease with an express provision. The rancher wins because of the lease clause, not because of some automatic legal effect of condemnation.
Why it's wrong
This choice reaches the correct conclusion (rancher wins) but for the wrong reason. Condemnation does not automatically 'supersede and cancel' a lease with an express provision. The rancher wins because of the lease clause, not because of some automatic legal effect of condemnation.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →