Introduction to Law: cram pack

Under UCTA 1977, a business-to-business clause excluding liability for property damage caused by negligence is valid:

1. AOnly if signed by a company director
2. BAlways, because businesses can bargain freely
3. COnly if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness
4. DNever, in any circumstances

Two parties agree to continue negotiating for the sale of a business, with no fixed period. In Walford v Miles, the House of Lords held that a bare agreement to negotiate in good faith is:

1. AEnforceable as a lock-out agreement
2. BEnforceable only if made in writing
3. CUnenforceable, because it lacks certainty
4. DEnforceable, as an implied duty of good faith

The Caparo test for a new duty of care requires:

1. AIntention, motive and damage
2. BA contract between the parties, a breach of its terms and loss flowing directly from the breach
3. CForeseeability of harm, proximity and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
4. DProof of criminal conduct

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:

1. APlanning permission was not in itself a defence, and damages instead of an injunction should be considered more flexibly
2. BPlanning permission was a complete defence to the nuisance claim
3. CCourts must always grant an injunction where nuisance is proved
4. DComing to the nuisance was a complete defence

In the GCHQ case, the House of Lords held that the exercise of prerogative powers:

1. ACan never be reviewed by the courts
2. BCan be judicially reviewed, depending on its subject matter
3. CIs always fully reviewable, whatever subject matter it concerns
4. DCan be reviewed only if Parliament agrees

The government introduces high fees for bringing claims to employment tribunals, and the number of claims falls sharply. In R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017), the Supreme Court held:

1. AThe fees were lawful because users of the courts must pay for them
2. BThe fees were unlawful because they prevented access to justice
3. CThe fees breached only EU competition law
4. DThe fees were lawful because Parliament authorised fees

Joint enterprise (accessorial liability) after R v Jogee requires that the accessory:

1. AMerely foresaw as a real possibility that the principal might commit the crime
2. BWas present at the scene by chance
3. CIntended to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime
4. DWas related to the principal

In R v Cheshire, the court held that negligent medical treatment of a gunshot victim:

1. ADid not break the chain of causation unless it was so independent and potent that the original wound became insignificant
2. BAlways breaks the chain of causation
3. CBroke the chain of causation whenever it was negligent enough to be the immediate medical cause of death, even if the wound still operated
4. DMakes the doctors liable for murder

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

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

In Defrenne v Sabena (No 2), the Court held that the principle of equal pay for men and women (now Article 157 TFEU):

1. ARequires a directive before it can be applied
2. BApplies only to public employers
3. CHas no direct effect
4. DHas both vertical and horizontal direct effect