Pre-Test Question 2

Question 2 is based on the following fact situation: 

Peters sued Dietrich, claiming that they had entered into an oral agreement whereby Dietrich agreed to hire Peters as Chief Engineer of Dietrich Products and Peters agreed to take the job at a specified salary, and that Dietrich had subsequently breached their employment contract by refusing to hire Peters. At the trial of Peters’s suit, Dietrich took the stand and denied having any contract with Peters for employment or otherwise. In response, Peters offers into evidence a properly authenticated phone message to Dietrich’s wife, Wanda, that Dietrich had left with the switchboard operator at her office. The message stated, “I know you won’t be happy, but I’ve offered Peters the Chief Engineer position and he’s accepted?” Dietrich’s attorney objects. 

The phone message should be ruled: 

(A)    Admissible, because it is the statement of a party-opponent.

(B)    Admissible, if it is a recent perception.

(C)    Inadmissible, because it is a privileged communication between husband and wife.

(D)    Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

Go To Question 3