In English law, the "postal rule" means an acceptance sent by post takes effect:
- AWhen the letter is posted
- BWhen the letter is read
- CWhen the letter arrives
- DWhen the offeror replies
Formula sheets, the key method steps for every topic and 10 practice problems, with full solutions at the back.
In English law, the "postal rule" means an acceptance sent by post takes effect:
A buyer specifically asks a surveyor to check aircraft noise at a property. The surveyor negligently reports no problem. In Farley v Skinner:
A house is built on defective foundations, approved by the local authority. Cracks appear and the owner sells at a loss. In Murphy v Brentwood DC, the loss was:
Residents complain of noise from a motor sports stadium that had been used for years and had planning permission. In Coventry v Lawrence, the Supreme Court held that:
In England and Wales, a claim for judicial review must generally be filed:
Under Osman v UK, a state breaches its positive obligation under Article 2 to protect a person from a third party if the authorities:
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:
Under the "transferred malice" doctrine, if A aims a blow at B but hits C:
Which of these can NOT be used to justify a restriction on imports under Article 36 TFEU?
In Commission v Italy (trailers, 2009), an Italian ban on motorcycles towing trailers was held to be:
Answer: A · When the letter is posted
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Where post is a reasonable method of acceptance, the acceptance is complete when posted, even if delayed or lost. It does not apply to revocations or instant communications.
Answer: B · Damages for discomfort were recoverable, as peace of mind was an important object of the obligation
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The House of Lords held that non-pecuniary damages are recoverable where a major or important object of the contract, not necessarily the only one, was to provide pleasure or peace of mind.
Answer: A · Pure economic loss, not recoverable in negligence
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The cost of repairing a defect in a building, or its reduced value, is pure economic loss. The House of Lords overruled Anns v Merton on this point.
Answer: A · Planning permission was not in itself a defence, and damages instead of an injunction should be considered more flexibly
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The court held that coming to the nuisance and planning permission are generally no defence, though permission may be relevant to locality. It also said the old Shelfer approach to damages in lieu of an injunction should not be applied mechanically.
Answer: D · Promptly, and in any event within three months
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The short time limit protects good administration and certainty. Some areas, such as planning, have even shorter limits.
Answer: B · Knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life, and failed to take reasonable measures
Jurisdiction: European Convention on Human Rights. The obligation is not to prevent every risk, which would place an impossible burden on the police, but to act reasonably once a real and immediate risk is known or should be known.
Answer: A · Appropriation is a continuing act, so the force was used at the time of the theft
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Hale held that appropriation can continue while the thief is still in the act of making off, so force used then is "at the time of" stealing.
Answer: C · A's intention towards B is transferred, so A can be liable for the harm to C
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Malice transfers where the actus reus and mens rea are of the same type of offence. It does not transfer between different kinds of offences (R v Pembliton).
Answer: C · Protecting the national economy from competition
Jurisdiction: EU law. Purely economic aims, such as protecting domestic producers, can never justify restrictions on free movement; the listed grounds must also be applied proportionately.
Answer: A · A measure having equivalent effect, because it hindered access to the market for the product
Jurisdiction: EU law. The Court held that restrictions on use that prevent or greatly limit demand hinder market access and fall under Article 34, though they may be justified, here by road safety.
ExamProblems · examproblems.com/courses/introduction-to-law