Introduction to Law: cram pack

A decorator finishes the work but with minor defects that are cheap to fix. Under Hoenig v Isaacs, the decorator is entitled to:

1. ANothing, because performance was not exact
2. BOnly payment for the materials used
3. CThe full price with no deduction
4. DThe price less the cost of putting the defects right

An actress is wrongly denied the chance to take part in the final stage of a competition in which some finalists would win prizes. In Chaplin v Hicks:

1. AShe could recover the full value of a prize
2. BShe could recover nothing, because her loss was uncertain
3. CShe could recover only her travel expenses
4. DShe could recover damages for the loss of a chance

Workmen leave an open manhole with paraffin lamps. A boy knocks a lamp in, causing an unexpected explosion and burns. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the defendants were:

1. ANot liable, because the explosion was unforeseeable
2. BNot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
3. CLiable, because burns were a foreseeable type of harm
4. DLiable only for half of the damage

After an accident in a tunnel, a police inspector negligently orders an officer to ride back against the traffic, and the officer is hit. In Knightley v Johns, the original negligent driver was:

1. ALiable, because rescuers are foreseeable
2. BLiable for half, shared with the inspector
3. CLiable for all consequences, because the officer's injury was a foreseeable result of the crash
4. DNot liable for the officer's injury, because the inspector's negligence broke the chain

In CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case), Lord Diplock classified the grounds of judicial review as:

1. AIllegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
2. BLegality, legitimacy and proportionality
3. CFraud, mistake and duress
4. DJurisdiction, motive and fairness

A health authority moves a severely disabled woman into a care home after promising it would be her "home for life", then decides to close it. In R v North and East Devon HA, ex p Coughlan:

1. AThe promise could be broken whenever policy changed
2. BOnly a fair consultation was required
3. CFrustrating her substantive legitimate expectation was an abuse of power
4. DThe promise was void because the authority had no statutory power to make it

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:

1. AThe car was worth more after the repairs
2. BProperty belongs to anyone who has possession or control of it
3. CD intended to return the car later
4. DOwners who take back their own property are always acting dishonestly

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. BConsensual sado-masochistic acts between adults in private
3. CTattoos applied by a licensed tattoo artist
4. DInjuries suffered in properly conducted boxing matches between consenting adults

In Van Binsbergen (1974), a Dutch rule requiring legal representatives to reside in the Netherlands was examined. The Court held that:

1. AMember states may always require residence for professionals involved in the administration of justice
2. BThe freedom to provide services is directly effective and residence requirements need justification
3. CLegal services are outside the scope of the Treaty
4. DOnly regulations can create rights for service providers

In Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2013), the Court interpreted "regulatory act" in Article 263(4) TFEU to mean:

1. AAny act adopted by the Commission or the Council
2. BAn act of general application other than a legislative act
3. CAn act addressed to a specific individual
4. DAny regulation, whether legislative or not