MBE Exam Prep Free practice test →

Free MBE Practice Questions

10 free, exam-style Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) (MBE) practice questions with answers and explanations. No signup required. Work through them below, then take the full free MBE practice test to study every exam domain.

The MBE exam has 200 questions and runs 6 hours.

These 10 free MBE questions are organized by exam domain, so you can see how each part of the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) blueprint is tested. Reveal the answer and explanation under each question.

Domain 1: Civil Procedure 14.3% of exam

Question 1

A company in State A manufactures electronic components and sells them exclusively to an assembler in State B. The assembler incorporates the components into appliances that it markets nationwide. A consumer in State C is injured by an appliance containing one of the components and sues the State A manufacturer in a State C federal court. The manufacturer has no offices, employees, property, or direct sales in State C and has never targeted the State C market. Should the State C court exercise personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer?

  1. No, because the manufacturer did not purposefully direct any activity toward State C.
  2. Yes, because the manufacturer placed its components into the stream of commerce and could foresee they might reach State C.
  3. Yes, because the consumer's injury occurred in State C, where the harm was felt.
  4. No, because jurisdiction lies only in State B, where the appliances were assembled.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: A - No, because the manufacturer did not purposefully direct any activity toward State C.

Question 2

A citizen of State X sues a citizen of State Y in federal district court in State Y, invoking diversity jurisdiction and asserting a state-law negligence claim. The relevant state law provides a two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions, and there is no federal statute of limitations governing the claim. Which limitations period should the federal court apply?

  1. A limitations period crafted by the court as a matter of federal common law.
  2. The forum state's two-year period, because statutes of limitations are treated as substantive under the Erie doctrine.
  3. The limitations period of State X, where the plaintiff is a citizen and the suit originated.
  4. Whatever limitations period the federal court, in its own discretion, considers to be the most reasonable under all of the circumstances presented.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: B - The forum state's two-year period, because statutes of limitations are treated as substantive under the Erie doctrine.

Domain 2: Constitutional Law 14.3% of exam

Question 3

A state statute provides that in any contested child-custody proceeding, the mother is entitled to a preference and shall be awarded custody unless she is shown to be unfit. A father who was denied custody under this preference challenges the statute under the Equal Protection Clause. How should a court most likely rule?

  1. Constitutional, because the state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children and the preference is rationally related to that interest.
  2. Constitutional, because custody disputes fall within the states' traditional police power and merit judicial deference.
  3. Unconstitutional, because a sex-based classification must be substantially related to an important interest, which this preference is not.
  4. Unconstitutional, because sex-based classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, which the state cannot satisfy here.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - Unconstitutional, because a sex-based classification must be substantially related to an important interest, which this preference is not.

Question 4

A city ordinance prohibits posting any sign on public property that 'refers to a candidate for public office or a ballot measure,' while permitting signs that give directions, identify businesses, or convey other messages. A resident cited for posting a campaign sign challenges the ordinance under the First Amendment. How should a court most likely rule?

  1. Constitutional, because the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner limits on speech that occurs on public property.
  2. Constitutional, because the city has a substantial interest in preventing visual clutter, and the ordinance is narrowly drawn to serve it.
  3. Unconstitutional, because any restriction on speech in a traditional public forum is automatically invalid regardless of the government's purpose.
  4. Unconstitutional, because the ordinance draws distinctions based on the content of the speech and cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: D - Unconstitutional, because the ordinance draws distinctions based on the content of the speech and cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.

Question 5

To support local processing jobs, a state enacts a law providing that milk may be sold to consumers within the state only if it was processed at a facility located within that state. An out-of-state dairy whose milk is processed in a neighboring state is barred from selling in the state and sues. How should a court most likely rule?

  1. Constitutional, because states retain broad authority under their police power to protect the health and safety of their residents.
  2. Constitutional, because Congress has not enacted any statute regulating the interstate sale or processing of milk.
  3. Unconstitutional, because the law discriminates against interstate commerce and nondiscriminatory alternatives are available.
  4. Unconstitutional, because the authority to regulate any industry whose products cross state lines belongs exclusively to Congress.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - Unconstitutional, because the law discriminates against interstate commerce and nondiscriminatory alternatives are available.

Domain 3: Contracts 14.3% of exam

Question 6

A merchant buyer sends a merchant seller a purchase order for 500 industrial valves. The seller replies with an acknowledgment form that mirrors the purchase order but adds a clause disclaiming the implied warranty of merchantability. Neither form makes acceptance conditional on assent to its own terms, and the buyer never objects to the added clause. The parties perform, and the valves prove defective. Is the warranty disclaimer part of the contract?

  1. Yes, because between merchants an additional term proposed in an acceptance automatically becomes part of the bargain.
  2. Yes, because the buyer accepted delivery of the valves and used them without objecting to the disclaimer.
  3. No, because the seller's acknowledgment operated as a counteroffer that the buyer never expressly accepted.
  4. No, because such a disclaimer materially alters the contract and does not bind the buyer without the buyer's express assent.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: D - No, because such a disclaimer materially alters the contract and does not bind the buyer without the buyer's express assent.

Question 7

A contractor agrees in writing to build a garage for a homeowner for $40,000. After construction begins, the contractor says the job is more tedious than expected-though no unforeseen conditions exist-and demands an extra $8,000 to finish the same work. Eager to avoid delay, the homeowner promises to pay it. When the garage is complete, the homeowner pays the original $40,000 but refuses to pay the additional $8,000. Is the homeowner's promise to pay the extra $8,000 enforceable?

  1. No, because the contractor was already bound to complete the work and gave no new consideration for the additional promise.
  2. Yes, because the homeowner voluntarily agreed to pay the higher amount to keep the project moving.
  3. Yes, because a modification of an existing contract does not require any additional consideration.
  4. No, because the modification was never reduced to a signed writing as the law requires.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: A - No, because the contractor was already bound to complete the work and gave no new consideration for the additional promise.

Question 8

An employer orally agrees to employ a worker 'for the rest of the worker's life' at a fixed annual salary. Two years later, the employer fires the worker without cause. The worker sues for breach, and the employer defends on the ground that the agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it was not in writing. Is the oral contract enforceable?

  1. No, because a contract to employ a person for life cannot possibly be completed within a single year.
  2. Yes, because the contract could be fully performed within one year if the worker died, so it falls outside the Statute of Frauds.
  3. No, because every contract of employment must be evidenced by a signed writing in order to be enforceable.
  4. Yes, because the Statute of Frauds simply has no application to contracts for lifetime personal employment.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: B - Yes, because the contract could be fully performed within one year if the worker died, so it falls outside the Statute of Frauds.

Domain 4: Criminal Law and Procedure 14.3% of exam

Question 9

Police lawfully arrest a driver for operating a vehicle with a suspended license. They handcuff him and secure him in the back of a patrol car. Officers then search the passenger compartment of the arrestee's car and discover illegal drugs in the glove box. There is no reason to think evidence relating to the suspended-license offense would be in the car. The driver moves to suppress the drugs. Should the court suppress the evidence?

  1. No, because officers may always search the passenger compartment of a vehicle whenever they arrest one of its recent occupants.
  2. No, because the search was independently justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
  3. Yes, because the arrestee was already secured and officers had no reason to believe the car contained evidence of the offense of arrest.
  4. Yes, because officers may never search any part of a vehicle without first securing a warrant from a magistrate.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - Yes, because the arrestee was already secured and officers had no reason to believe the car contained evidence of the offense of arrest.

Question 10

An officer stops a motorist for a broken taillight. While standing beside the car during the routine stop, the officer asks the motorist whether he has had anything to drink that evening. The motorist, who has not been given Miranda warnings, admits he drank several beers. He is later charged with driving under the influence and moves to suppress his admission. Should the court suppress the statement?

  1. Yes, because the motorist was not free to leave the scene and was therefore in custody.
  2. Yes, because the officer subjected the motorist to questioning without first administering any of the required Miranda warnings.
  3. No, because the motorist's admission was made voluntarily and was not the product of coercion.
  4. No, because the temporary detention involved in an ordinary traffic stop does not amount to custody for Miranda purposes.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: D - No, because the temporary detention involved in an ordinary traffic stop does not amount to custody for Miranda purposes.

The rest of the MBE blueprint

The MBE exam also covers these domains. Drill them in the full free practice test:

Ready for the real thing?

Practice hundreds more MBE questions with instant scoring, weak-area drills, and full exam simulations.

Start the free practice test See pricing