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. AThe full price with no deduction
2. BNothing, because performance was not exact
3. COnly payment for the materials used
4. DThe price less the cost of putting the defects right

In the Dutch Civil Code (BW), an offer that states a time limit for acceptance is:

1. AAutomatically accepted at the end of the period
2. BIrrevocable during that period
3. CInvalid without notarial approval
4. DRevocable at any moment before acceptance

A learner driver on her third lesson crashes and injures her instructor. Under Nettleship v Weston, her driving is judged by the standard of:

1. AA professional racing driver
2. BA reasonable learner at the same stage
3. CHer own best efforts as a beginner
4. DA reasonably competent and experienced driver

A mother arrives at hospital about two hours after a road accident and sees her family injured and covered in blood. In McLoughlin v O'Brian, she:

1. ACould recover only for financial losses
2. BCould not recover, as she was only told about it
3. CCould not recover, as she was not at the scene
4. DCould recover, as she saw the immediate aftermath

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

1. AJurisdiction, motive and fairness
2. BLegality, legitimacy and proportionality
3. CIllegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
4. DFraud, mistake and duress

After a court makes a declaration of incompatibility, section 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 allows a minister to:

1. ASuspend the Convention right in question
2. BOverrule the court's declaration
3. CRefer the case directly to Strasbourg
4. DAmend the incompatible legislation by a remedial order

D, a diabetic, takes insulin, skips food, becomes hypoglycaemic and hits V without knowing what he is doing. D may rely on:

1. ANon-insane automatism, because an external factor caused the episode
2. BDiminished responsibility, because harm was caused
3. CDuress of circumstances, because D was ill
4. DInsanity, because diabetes is a disease affecting the functioning of the mind

Gross negligence manslaughter in English law (R v Adomako) requires:

1. AAn unlawful and dangerous act causing death, judged objectively by sober and reasonable people
2. BA duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that it should be criminal
3. CIntention to kill
4. DSubjective recklessness about death

In Foto-Frost (1987), the Court held that national courts:

1. ACan freely declare EU acts invalid
2. BMust apply EU acts even if the Court of Justice has already declared them invalid
3. CCannot declare an EU act invalid themselves and must refer the question
4. DCannot refer validity questions to the Court of Justice

In Rottmann (2010), Germany withdrew a naturalisation obtained by deception, leaving the person stateless. The Court held:

1. AMember states can never withdraw nationality once granted if doing so would make the person stateless
2. BNationality is purely national, so EU law is irrelevant
3. CThe withdrawal fell within the scope of EU law and had to respect the principle of proportionality
4. DThe person automatically regained his previous nationality