Introduction to Law: cram pack

A customer signs a contract containing an exclusion clause without reading it. Absent fraud or misrepresentation, the clause is generally:

1. ANot incorporated, because it was not read
2. BVoid for unilateral mistake
3. CIncorporated, because a signature binds the signer
4. DIncorporated only if it was explained orally

A seller agreed to ship goods from Sudan to Hamburg. The Suez Canal was closed, so the ship had to go round the Cape of Good Hope, a much longer route. In Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl:

1. AThe buyer had to pay the extra freight costs
2. BThe contract was void from the start
3. CThe contract was not frustrated, as the longer route was not fundamentally different
4. DThe contract was frustrated, as shipping via the usual Suez route had become impossible

Under Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, a doctor must inform a patient about:

1. AMaterial risks of treatment and reasonable alternatives
2. BOnly the risks other doctors would usually mention
3. CEvery possible risk, however remote
4. DNothing, unless the patient asks

Under the EU Product Liability Directive, the "development risks" defence allows a producer to escape liability if:

1. AThe product was sold at a low price
2. BThe state of scientific and technical knowledge when the product was circulated did not allow the defect to be discovered
3. CThe producer was not negligent in manufacturing
4. DThe consumer did not read the instructions

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. BCannot be repealed at all
3. CMust be approved by referendum
4. DCannot be impliedly repealed, only expressly

In R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019), the Supreme Court held that an ouster clause protecting the Tribunal's decisions:

1. ADid not exclude judicial review of its errors of law
2. BExcluded all review of its decisions
3. CApplied only to decisions on national security
4. DWas invalid because it was in secondary legislation

D takes V's bag and is seen; a few seconds later D ties V up to escape. Following R v Hale, D is guilty of robbery because:

1. AThe bag was later recovered by the police
2. BAny force used on the victim within an hour of the theft automatically turns it into robbery
3. CAppropriation is a continuing act, so the force was used at the time of the theft
4. DTying up a victim is robbery even without theft

In R v Whybrow (1951), the court held that the mens rea of attempted murder is:

1. AThe same as the mens rea of murder
2. BRecklessness as to causing death
3. CAn intention to cause GBH
4. DAn intention to kill only

The Cassis de Dijon judgment introduced:

1. AThe rule that indistinctly applicable measures can be justified only on the grounds listed exhaustively in Article 36 TFEU
2. BState liability
3. CMutual recognition and mandatory requirements as justifications for indistinctly applicable measures
4. DEU citizenship

The "Melloni" judgment held that a member state may NOT:

1. ARefer questions to the Court of Justice
2. BEver protect fundamental rights more than the EU
3. CExecute any European Arrest Warrant
4. DApply a higher national standard of fundamental rights where it would undermine the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law in a fully harmonised area