Introduction to Law: cram pack

A buyer is told false figures about a business and is offered documents that would reveal the truth, but does not read them. Under Redgrave v Hurd:

1. AThe buyer can claim only half the loss
2. BThe buyer can still rely on the misrepresentation
3. CThe misrepresentation becomes a term
4. DThe buyer loses all remedies by failing to check

A council writes that it "may be prepared to sell" a house to a tenant and invites a formal application. The tenant applies, then the council changes its policy. In Gibson v Manchester City Council, the House of Lords held:

1. AA contract was formed when the tenant applied
2. BThere was no contract, because the letter was not an offer
3. CA contract was formed when the council's letter was sent to the tenant
4. DThe council was bound by estoppel to sell

A five-year-old falls into a trench on open land while playing without an adult. In Phipps v Rochester Corporation, the occupier was:

1. ALiable, because young children must be protected from every danger on the land
2. BNot liable, because it could expect parents to supervise very young children
3. CLiable, because the trench was not fenced
4. DNot liable, because the child was a trespasser

A surveyor values a modest house for a mortgage lender, knowing the buyer will rely on it. The report is negligent and contains a disclaimer. In Smith v Eric S Bush, the House of Lords held:

1. AThe lender alone could sue the surveyor
2. BThe surveyor owed no duty, because the buyer was not the client who commissioned the report
3. CThe surveyor owed a duty to the buyer, and the disclaimer failed the reasonableness test
4. DThe disclaimer excluded all liability to the buyer

In Lingens v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held that politicians:

1. AHave no rights under Article 10
2. BAre fully protected from any criticism
3. CCannot sue for defamation at all
4. DMust tolerate wider criticism than private individuals

Soldiers shoot dead three suspected terrorists in Gibraltar. In McCann v UK, the European Court of Human Rights found a breach of Article 2 because:

1. AThe UK had not ratified the Convention for Gibraltar
2. BAny killing by state agents breaches Article 2
3. CThe operation was not planned and controlled to minimise the use of lethal force
4. DThe soldiers acted out of personal hatred

D attacks someone while sleepwalking. Following R v Burgess, the correct defence is:

1. ASelf-defence, because D was dreaming of an attack
2. BInvoluntary intoxication, because D was not aware
3. CInsanity, because sleepwalking was caused by an internal factor
4. DNon-insane automatism, because sleep is natural

In the Dutch "Melk-en-water" judgment (Hoge Raad, 1916), the court recognised:

1. AAbsence of all blame (AVAS) as an unwritten excuse
2. BConditional intent as a form of intention
3. CThe legality principle as part of the Constitution
4. DForce majeure as a written justification

Under the Lisbon voting rules, a blocking minority in the Council must include at least:

1. AFour member states
2. BHalf of the member states
3. CTwo member states
4. DTen member states

In Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA, 2002), the Court of Justice held that the Plaumann test:

1. ACould not be relaxed by the Court, as effective remedies are the responsibility of national systems and treaty amendment
2. BApplies only to regulations, not to decisions
3. CWas incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
4. DShould be relaxed, as the Advocate General proposed, to a "substantial adverse effect" test wherever no national remedy exists