Introduction to Law: cram pack

Which of these will usually bar rescission for misrepresentation?

1. AThe misrepresentation was made by a company
2. BThe innocent party affirms the contract after learning the truth
3. CThe misrepresentation was innocent rather than fraudulent or negligent
4. DThe contract was made in writing

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. BUnenforceable, because it lacks certainty
3. CEnforceable, as an implied duty of good faith
4. DEnforceable only if made in writing

The "but for" test is used to establish:

1. ADuty of care
2. BRemoteness of damage
3. CFactual causation
4. DThe standard of care

Fumes from a copper smelting works damage trees and shrubs on a nearby estate in an industrial area. In St Helen's Smelting v Tipping, the House of Lords held:

1. AThere was no nuisance, because the character of the industrial area excused the fumes and the damage
2. BThe claimant came to the nuisance, so lost
3. CThere was a nuisance only if the fumes were noisy
4. DThe character of the locality was irrelevant, because there was physical damage to property

In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (the "metric martyrs" case), Laws LJ said that "constitutional statutes":

1. ACannot be repealed at all
2. BMust be approved by referendum
3. CPrevail automatically over all later Acts of Parliament
4. DCannot be impliedly repealed, only expressly

In the Harmonisatiewet judgment (1989), the Dutch Supreme Court held that Article 120 of the Constitution:

1. AApplies only to delegated legislation
2. BPrevents courts from reviewing Acts of Parliament against fundamental principles of law
3. CAllows courts to strike down Acts that breach fundamental principles such as legal certainty
4. DWas overridden by the principle of legal certainty

D throws a paving stone off a bridge onto a train, killing the guard. D did not think anyone would be hurt. Following DPP v Newbury and Jones, D is guilty of:

1. ANo offence, as D did not subjectively foresee any risk of harm to anyone at all
2. BMurder, as the act was likely to kill
3. CUnlawful act manslaughter, as the act was unlawful and objectively dangerous
4. DGross negligence manslaughter only

In R v Brown (1993), the House of Lords held that consent was no defence to s47 and s20 charges arising from:

1. AInjuries suffered in properly conducted boxing matches between consenting adults
2. BSurgery carried out without the patient's signature
3. CTattoos applied by a licensed tattoo artist
4. DConsensual sado-masochistic acts between adults in private

A member state grants a subsidy to a company without notifying the Commission. Under the state aid rules, the state:

1. AMust pay a fine to every competitor
2. BMust obtain approval from the European Parliament afterwards to legalise the aid
3. CHas acted lawfully if the subsidy was small in its view
4. DBreached the standstill obligation and may be required to recover the aid

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. BHas no direct effect
3. CHas both vertical and horizontal direct effect
4. DApplies only to public employers