Introduction to Law: cram pack

An actress agrees to act only for one studio and not for any other during the contract. She leaves to act for a rival. The court is most likely to:

1. ARefuse any remedy, as personal services are involved
2. BOrder her to perform her contract with the studio
3. CGrant an injunction stopping her acting for the rival
4. DOrder her to pay the rival's profits to the court

A husband who has left his wife signs a note promising to transfer the house to her if she pays off the mortgage. She does. In Merritt v Merritt, the promise was:

1. AUnenforceable, because she gave no consideration
2. BEnforceable only because it was made by deed
3. CUnenforceable, because it was a domestic arrangement between husband and wife
4. DEnforceable, because separated spouses are presumed to intend legal relations

A worker inhales silica dust from two sources, only one of which was due to the employer's breach. In Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw, the employer was liable because the guilty dust:

1. AMaterially contributed to the disease
2. BWas more than half of the total dust
3. CWas the only cause of the disease
4. DWas easier to prevent than the other dust

An internal auditor with a grudge against his employer leaks staff payroll data online. In WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants (2020), the Supreme Court held the employer:

1. ANot vicariously liable, as he was pursuing a personal vendetta
2. BVicariously liable, as data breaches are strict liability
3. CVicariously liable, as he had access to the data through his job
4. DLiable only to staff whose data was used for fraud

To bring a claim for judicial review in England and Wales, the claimant must have:

1. ASuffered financial loss
2. BPermission from the minister
3. CA contract with the public body
4. DA sufficient interest in the matter

After 2001, the UK detained foreign terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. In A v Home Secretary (the Belmarsh case), the House of Lords:

1. AMade a declaration of incompatibility, finding the measure disproportionate and discriminatory
2. BOrdered the immediate release of all detainees
3. CUpheld the detention as a valid response to an emergency
4. DHeld that national security questions were for the executive alone and could not be reviewed by courts

D throws a glass of beer over V intending only to wet her; the glass slips and cuts V. Following R v Savage, D's liability under section 47 OAPA requires:

1. AIntention to cause actual bodily harm
2. BForesight that at least some actual bodily harm would result from the assault
3. CForesight that grievous bodily harm would be caused
4. DOnly the mens rea of assault or battery, with no foresight of harm needed

In R v Brown (1993), the House of Lords held that consent was no defence to s47 and s20 charges arising from:

1. ASurgery carried out without the patient's signature
2. BTattoos applied by a licensed tattoo artist
3. CConsensual sado-masochistic acts between adults in private
4. DInjuries suffered in properly conducted boxing matches between consenting adults

In Commission v Ireland ("Buy Irish", 1982), a campaign promoting Irish products breached Article 34 because:

1. AIt set quotas on goods from other member states
2. BIt was run by private companies without state involvement
3. CIt was a state-supported measure capable of influencing traders to prefer domestic goods
4. DIt imposed a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on goods imported from other member states

In Baumbast (2002), a German national in the UK lacked sickness insurance covering emergency treatment. The Court held that:

1. AHe had no right to reside because he was no longer working
2. BResidence rights depend entirely on national immigration law once a person has stopped working in the host member state
3. CArticle 21 TFEU gives a directly effective right of residence, and limits on it must be applied proportionately
4. DOnly EU institutions can enforce citizenship rights