Introduction to Law: cram pack

A holiday company provides a holiday far below the promised standard. Can the customer recover damages for disappointment?

1. AOnly if the company acted dishonestly
2. BOnly if the customer suffered a physical injury
3. CNo, because mental distress is never recoverable in contract
4. DYes, because the contract's purpose was to provide enjoyment

A buyer specifically asks a surveyor to check aircraft noise at a property. The surveyor negligently reports no problem. In Farley v Skinner:

1. ADamages for discomfort were recoverable, as peace of mind was an important object of the obligation
2. BNo damages were recoverable, because damages for distress or discomfort are always excluded in contract
3. CThe buyer had to sell the house before claiming
4. DOnly the difference in market value was recoverable

Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:

1. A50%
2. B25%
3. C75%
4. D10%

A council's water pipe to a block of flats leaks and causes an embankment to collapse, exposing a gas main. In Transco v Stockport MBC, the House of Lords held:

1. AThe council was liable in negligence for the leak
2. BThe council was strictly liable for all escaping water
3. CRylands v Fletcher was abolished in English law
4. DThere was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use

In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (the "metric martyrs" case), Laws LJ said that "constitutional statutes":

1. APrevail automatically over all later Acts of Parliament
2. BMust be approved by referendum
3. CCannot be impliedly repealed, only expressly
4. DCannot be repealed at all

In the Harmonisatiewet judgment (1989), the Dutch Supreme Court held that Article 120 of the Constitution:

1. AAllows courts to strike down Acts that breach fundamental principles such as legal certainty
2. BApplies only to delegated legislation
3. CPrevents courts from reviewing Acts of Parliament against fundamental principles of law
4. DWas overridden by the principle of legal certainty

D throws a paving stone off a bridge onto a train, killing the guard. D did not think anyone would be hurt. Following DPP v Newbury and Jones, D is guilty of:

1. AGross negligence manslaughter only
2. BUnlawful act manslaughter, as the act was unlawful and objectively dangerous
3. CNo offence, as D did not subjectively foresee any risk of harm to anyone at all
4. DMurder, as the act was likely to kill

In R v Gullefer (1990), D ran onto a greyhound track to get the race declared void and recover his bet. The Court of Appeal held:

1. AHis acts were merely preparatory, as he had not embarked on the "crime proper"
2. BHe was guilty of attempted theft, as running onto the track was more than preparatory
3. CImpossibility gave him a complete defence
4. DAttempt requires the last act before the crime

Directives generally do NOT have:

1. AHorizontal direct effect between private parties
2. BAny legal effect at all
3. CBinding force after the transposition deadline
4. DVertical direct effect against the state

In Van Duyn v Home Office (1974), a Dutch Scientologist was refused entry to the UK. The Court held that:

1. AA directive provision could have direct effect, and present association with an organisation could count as personal conduct
2. BReligious organisations are fully protected by free movement law
3. CThe UK could not rely on public policy, because membership of a lawful organisation is never personal conduct for that purpose
4. DDirectives can never have direct effect