Question I (Multistate Format):

In Conti v. ASPCA, the court concluded that:

1. The parrot was Mr. Conti’s property because the parrot was in Mr. Conti’s possession before it was wrongfully take by the ASPCA and possession of an animal creates a property right.

2. The parrot was Mr. Conti’s property because the parrot failed to perform tricks in court that the ASPCA claimed its parrot was able to perform and the parrot chose Mr. Conti when given an opportunity to show whether it preferred Conti or the ASPCA.

3. The parrot was the ASPCA’s property because it was Chester and Chester had been trained by the ASPCA and was not a wild parrot.

4. The parrot was the ASPCA’s property because the parrot was in the possession of the ASPCA and possession creates a strong presumption that the property belongs to the possessor.

Question II (Harpaz Format):

In Conti v. ASPCA, the court concluded that the parrot was not Mr. Conti’s property because:

1. The parrot performed tricks in the courtroom that the ASPCA testified that its parrot Chester was able to perform.

2. The parrot was in the possession of the ASPCA and possession creates a strong presumption that the property belongs to the possessor.

3. The parrot was identified as Chester and Chester was a domesticated parrot who was the property of the ASPCA.

4. Answers 1 and 2.

5. Answers 1 and 3.

6. Answers 2 and 3.