1Practice problems
1.Contract lawMedium
A sailor is to be paid only on completing a voyage, but dies part of the way. Under the strict rule applied in Cutter v Powell:
- AThe full wages were payable
- BThe ship owner had to pay compensation
- CNothing was recoverable for the part performed
- DA proportion of the wages was payable
2.Contract lawHard
A van is bought "on hire-purchase terms" with no further detail, and such terms varied widely in practice. In Scammell v Ouston, the House of Lords held:
- AThere was a contract on the standard hire-purchase terms of the market
- BThere was no contract, because the terms were too vague
- CThere was a contract at a reasonable price
- DThe seller's usual terms applied
3.Tort lawMedium
A council leaves an abandoned boat on its land. Two boys jack it up to repair it, and it falls and injures one. In Jolley v Sutton LBC, the council was:
- ALiable only to the boy who used the jack
- BLiable, because the broad type of accident was foreseeable
- CNot liable, because repairs are not play
- DNot liable, because the boys' exact actions were unforeseeable
4.Tort lawHard
As a practical joke, a man falsely tells a woman that her husband has been badly injured. She suffers a serious illness from the shock. In Wilkinson v Downton, the man was:
- ANot liable, because it was only a joke
- BLiable only in defamation
- CLiable for intentionally causing physical harm by a false statement
- DNot liable, because there was no direct physical contact with the woman
5.Constitutional lawMedium
A chief constable is dismissed without being told the charges or given a chance to respond. In Ridge v Baldwin, the House of Lords held:
- AThe dismissal was valid, because the police had no contract
- BThe dismissal was void for breach of natural justice
- COnly Parliament could review the decision
- DThe dismissal was valid, as it was an administrative decision
6.Constitutional lawHard
In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), the UK Supreme Court held that:
- AParliamentary legislation was required to give notice of withdrawal from the EU
- BThe referendum result was legally binding
- CDevolved legislatures had a veto over Brexit
- DThe government could give notice using prerogative powers without any Act of Parliament
7.Criminal lawMedium
D is present when a crime is committed but does nothing to help or encourage it. Following R v Clarkson, D is:
- AThe principal, because D witnessed the whole crime
- BAn accessory, because voluntary presence at the scene always amounts to encouragement
- CNot an accessory, because mere presence without intent to encourage is not enough
- DAn accessory, because D could have called the police
8.Criminal lawHard
In R v Cunningham (1957), D tore a gas meter off a wall to steal money; gas leaked and poisoned a neighbour. The court held "maliciously" means:
- AActing in a way that is against the law
- BFailing to notice a risk an ordinary person would see
- CIntending the harm or foreseeing the risk of it and taking it anyway
- DActing with wickedness or ill will towards the victim, as in ordinary usage
9.EU lawMedium
Van Gend en Loos (1963) established that:
- ATreaty provisions can have direct effect and create rights for individuals in national courts
- BDirectives have horizontal direct effect
- CMember states can leave the EU at will
- DTreaty provisions bind only the member states and never create rights for individuals before national courts
10.EU lawHard
Altmark Trans (2003) set conditions under which compensation for public service obligations:
- AIs not state aid because it confers no advantage
- BCan only be paid to state-owned companies
- CIs always prohibited state aid
- DMust be approved by the European Parliament
2Solutions
1.Contract law
Answer: C · Nothing was recoverable for the part performed
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Where payment depends on complete performance, partial performance traditionally earns nothing. The harshness is softened by substantial performance and, for frustration, by statute.
C · Nothing was recoverable for the part performed
2.Contract law
Answer: B · There was no contract, because the terms were too vague
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. An agreement is not a contract if its essential terms are too uncertain for the court to give them meaning. In Hillas v Arcos, a previous contract and trade practice allowed the court to fill the gap.
B · There was no contract, because the terms were too vague
3.Tort law
Answer: B · Liable, because the broad type of accident was foreseeable
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The House of Lords held that it was foreseeable that children would meddle with the boat and be injured, and the precise way they did so did not need to be foreseen.
B · Liable, because the broad type of accident was foreseeable
4.Tort law
Answer: C · Liable for intentionally causing physical harm by a false statement
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The court recognised liability for conduct calculated to cause physical harm. In Rhodes v OPO the Supreme Court held the tort requires an intention to cause physical or psychiatric harm or severe distress.
C · Liable for intentionally causing physical harm by a false statement
5.Constitutional law
Answer: B · The dismissal was void for breach of natural justice
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The right to a fair hearing applies to administrative decisions affecting individual rights, not only judicial ones. Ridge v Baldwin revived the modern law of procedural fairness.
B · The dismissal was void for breach of natural justice
6.Constitutional law
Answer: A · Parliamentary legislation was required to give notice of withdrawal from the EU
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Because withdrawal would change domestic law and remove rights, the prerogative could not be used; an Act of Parliament was required to trigger Article 50.
A · Parliamentary legislation was required to give notice of withdrawal from the EU
7.Criminal law
Answer: C · Not an accessory, because mere presence without intent to encourage is not enough
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Presence at a crime can be evidence of encouragement, but liability requires actual encouragement and an intention to encourage.
C · Not an accessory, because mere presence without intent to encourage is not enough
8.Criminal law
Answer: C · Intending the harm or foreseeing the risk of it and taking it anyway
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Cunningham defined malice as intention or subjective recklessness about the particular kind of harm; D's conviction was quashed because the jury had been misdirected.
C · Intending the harm or foreseeing the risk of it and taking it anyway
9.EU law
Answer: A · Treaty provisions can have direct effect and create rights for individuals in national courts
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. The Court held that clear, precise and unconditional treaty provisions (here on customs duties) give individuals rights enforceable before national courts.
A · Treaty provisions can have direct effect and create rights for individuals in national courts
10.EU law
Answer: A · Is not state aid because it confers no advantage
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. If the obligations are clearly defined, parameters are set in advance, compensation does not exceed costs plus reasonable profit, and costs reflect an efficient undertaking or tender, there is no advantage and no aid.
A · Is not state aid because it confers no advantage