1Practice problems
1.Contract lawMedium
A supplier receives a draft agreement, never signs or returns it, but both sides trade on its terms for years. A court is likely to find:
- AA void agreement for lack of certainty
- BA contract only for the first delivery
- CNo contract, because nothing was signed
- DA contract accepted by conduct
2.Contract lawHard
A buyer specifically asks a surveyor to check aircraft noise at a property. The surveyor negligently reports no problem. In Farley v Skinner:
- ADamages for discomfort were recoverable, as peace of mind was an important object of the obligation
- BThe buyer had to sell the house before claiming
- CNo damages were recoverable, because damages for distress or discomfort are always excluded in contract
- DOnly the difference in market value was recoverable
3.Tort lawMedium
The Wagon Mound case concerns which issue?
- ARemoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
- BDirectness: a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of the breach
- CDuty of care to unborn children
- DStrict liability for animals
4.Tort lawHard
A council's water pipe to a block of flats leaks and causes an embankment to collapse, exposing a gas main. In Transco v Stockport MBC, the House of Lords held:
- AThe council was strictly liable for all escaping water
- BThe council was liable in negligence for the leak
- CThere was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
- DRylands v Fletcher was abolished in English law
5.Constitutional lawMedium
In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by:
- AA simple majority in the House only
- BAsking the Supreme Court to approve the bill
- CA three-quarters vote of the states
- DA two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate
6.Constitutional lawHard
The Wednesbury unreasonableness test asks whether a decision is:
- ASo unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
- BSlightly less than ideal
- CDifferent from what the judge would have decided on the same evidence
- DUnpopular with the public
7.Criminal lawMedium
D, a diabetic, takes insulin, skips food, becomes hypoglycaemic and hits V without knowing what he is doing. D may rely on:
- ADiminished responsibility, because harm was caused
- BNon-insane automatism, because an external factor caused the episode
- CInsanity, because diabetes is a disease affecting the functioning of the mind
- DDuress of circumstances, because D was ill
8.Criminal lawHard
In Sweet v Parsley (1970), a landlady was convicted of being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. The House of Lords:
- AHeld that landladies have a duty to search their tenants
- BUpheld the conviction because drug offences are always strict liability in order to protect public health
- CQuashed the conviction, holding that mens rea is presumed unless Parliament clearly excludes it
- DHeld that cannabis offences require a commercial purpose
9.EU lawMedium
In Simmenthal (1978), the Court of Justice held that a national court faced with a national law conflicting with EU law must:
- AAsk the national parliament to amend the law first
- BApply the national law if it was adopted later
- CSet the national law aside of its own motion, without waiting for it to be repealed
- DWait for the national constitutional court to annul the law before it can disapply it
10.EU lawHard
In CIA Security (1996), Belgian technical rules not notified to the Commission as required by a directive were held to be:
- AVoid only in disputes against the Belgian state
- BValid, because directives do not have horizontal direct effect
- CValid until the Commission brings infringement proceedings
- DInapplicable, even in a dispute between private competitors
2Solutions
1.Contract law
Answer: D · A contract accepted by conduct
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Acceptance need not be in words; it can be inferred from conduct. In Brogden, ordering and supplying coal on the draft terms showed acceptance.
D · A contract accepted by conduct
2.Contract law
Answer: A · Damages for discomfort were recoverable, as peace of mind was an important object of the obligation
Why this is the answer
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.
A · Damages for discomfort were recoverable, as peace of mind was an important object of the obligation
3.Tort law
Answer: A · Remoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The Privy Council held that damage must be of a reasonably foreseeable type; the fire damage was not foreseeable, so it was too remote.
A · Remoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
4.Tort law
Answer: C · There was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The Lords kept the rule but confined it. A water supply pipe was an ordinary use, not one creating an exceptionally high risk, so there was no strict liability.
C · There was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
5.Constitutional law
Answer: D · A two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: United States law. The veto is a check on Congress, and the override is a check on the President. Overriding requires a supermajority in both chambers.
D · A two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate
6.Constitutional law
Answer: A · So unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation set a deliberately high bar: courts intervene only for decisions outside the range of reasonable responses.
A · So unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
7.Criminal law
Answer: B · Non-insane automatism, because an external factor caused the episode
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. In Quick the hypoglycaemia was caused by the insulin, an external factor, so it was non-insane automatism; hyperglycaemia from the disease itself was insanity in Hennessy.
B · Non-insane automatism, because an external factor caused the episode
8.Criminal law
Answer: C · Quashed the conviction, holding that mens rea is presumed unless Parliament clearly excludes it
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Sweet v Parsley established the presumption that mens rea is required for statutory offences, particularly "truly criminal" ones, unless rebutted by clear words or necessary implication.
C · Quashed the conviction, holding that mens rea is presumed unless Parliament clearly excludes it
9.EU law
Answer: C · Set the national law aside of its own motion, without waiting for it to be repealed
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. Simmenthal held that national courts must give full effect to EU law and refuse to apply conflicting national provisions, even later ones, without waiting for legislative or constitutional action.
C · Set the national law aside of its own motion, without waiting for it to be repealed
10.EU law
Answer: D · Inapplicable, even in a dispute between private competitors
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. Breach of the notification duty makes the technical regulation unenforceable against individuals, so it could not be relied on by a competitor in private litigation.
D · Inapplicable, even in a dispute between private competitors