1Practice problems
1.Contract lawMedium
Sailors are promised extra wages for sailing a ship home after two crew members desert, but they do no more than their contract already required. In Stilk v Myrick the promise was:
- AUnenforceable for lack of consideration
- BEnforceable as a practical benefit
- CUnenforceable because it was made at sea
- DEnforceable because the captain agreed freely
2.Contract lawHard
A distribution agreement says it is not a formal or legal agreement and is "binding in honour only". In Rose and Frank v Crompton, the court held:
- AThe agreement was binding despite those words
- BThe agreement itself was not legally binding
- CThe agreement was void as illegal
- DThe agreement was a deed and binding
3.Tort lawMedium
A cricket ball is hit out of a ground very rarely and injures a passer-by. In Bolton v Stone, the club was:
- ANegligent, because it did not stop playing cricket
- BNot negligent, because the risk was very small
- CStrictly liable for anything leaving the ground
- DNegligent, because the injury was foreseeable
4.Tort lawHard
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:
- AThere was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
- BThe council was strictly liable for all escaping water
- CThe council was liable in negligence for the leak
- DRylands v Fletcher was abolished in English law
5.Constitutional lawMedium
Under the UK Human Rights Act 1998, if a court cannot read an Act compatibly with Convention rights, it can:
- ARefer the case to the European Court of Human Rights automatically
- BMake a declaration of incompatibility, leaving the Act in force
- CStrike down the Act immediately
- DOrder Parliament to amend the Act within a month
6.Constitutional lawHard
Walter Bagehot described the "efficient secret" of the English constitution as:
- AThe strict separation of all three powers
- BThe monarch's power to veto legislation
- CThe independence of the House of Lords
- DThe close union of the executive and legislative powers
7.Criminal lawMedium
D takes his own car from a garage without paying for repairs. Following R v Turner (No 2), D can be guilty of theft because:
- AThe car was worth more after the repairs
- BD intended to return the car later
- COwners who take back their own property are always acting dishonestly
- DProperty belongs to anyone who has possession or control of it
8.Criminal lawHard
Gross negligence manslaughter in English law (R v Adomako) requires:
- AIntention to kill
- BSubjective recklessness about death
- CA duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that it should be criminal
- DAn unlawful and dangerous act causing death, judged objectively by sober and reasonable people
9.EU lawMedium
Under the Lisbon voting rules, a blocking minority in the Council must include at least:
- AHalf of the member states
- BTwo member states
- CFour member states
- DTen member states
10.EU lawHard
In Les Verts v European Parliament (1986), the Court held that acts of the Parliament intended to have legal effects on third parties:
- ACan only be challenged by member states
- BAre immune from review because the Parliament is directly elected by the citizens
- CAre reviewable only by national constitutional courts
- DCan be challenged, because the Community is based on the rule of law
2Solutions
1.Contract law
Answer: A · Unenforceable for lack of consideration
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Performing an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor was not consideration. In Hartley v Ponsonby the crew went beyond their duty because the voyage became dangerous, so extra pay was enforceable.
A · Unenforceable for lack of consideration
2.Contract law
Answer: B · The agreement itself was not legally binding
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The express wording rebutted the commercial presumption of legal intention. Individual orders that were placed and accepted under the arrangement were, however, binding contracts.
B · The agreement itself was not legally binding
3.Tort law
Answer: B · Not negligent, because the risk was very small
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. A reasonable person need not guard against every foreseeable risk. The probability of injury was so low that a reasonable club would not have taken further precautions.
B · Not negligent, because the risk was very small
4.Tort law
Answer: A · There was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The Lords kept the rule but confined it. A water supply pipe was an ordinary use, not one creating an exceptionally high risk, so there was no strict liability.
A · There was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
5.Constitutional law
Answer: B · Make a declaration of incompatibility, leaving the Act in force
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Courts must interpret legislation compatibly where possible (section 3). Otherwise higher courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility (section 4), but the Act remains valid.
B · Make a declaration of incompatibility, leaving the Act in force
6.Constitutional law
Answer: D · The close union of the executive and legislative powers
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Bagehot argued that the Cabinet, drawn from and dependent on Parliament, fused executive and legislature. This contrasts with the US-style separation of powers.
D · The close union of the executive and legislative powers
7.Criminal law
Answer: D · Property belongs to anyone who has possession or control of it
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Under s5(1) property belongs to anyone with possession or control or a proprietary interest, so an owner can steal from a person in possession.
D · Property belongs to anyone who has possession or control of it
8.Criminal law
Answer: C · A duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that it should be criminal
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The jury must find a duty, a breach causing death and that the breach was so gross as to deserve criminal sanction; a serious and obvious risk of death must have been foreseeable.
C · A duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that it should be criminal
9.EU law
Answer: C · Four member states
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. Article 16(4) TEU requires a blocking minority of at least four Council members; otherwise the qualified majority is deemed attained.
10.EU law
Answer: D · Can be challenged, because the Community is based on the rule of law
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. The Court read the annulment provision broadly because a Community based on the rule of law cannot allow binding acts to escape judicial review.
D · Can be challenged, because the Community is based on the rule of law