Introduction to Law: cram pack

A creditor agrees to take £600 in full settlement of a £1,000 debt that is due, then sues for the other £400. Under Pinnel's Case and Foakes v Beer, the creditor:

1. AMust give back the £600 first
2. BCannot recover anything more
3. CCan recover only if the agreement was oral
4. DCan usually recover the £400

A pays B money to bet on shares using insider information, which is illegal. The bet never happens and A wants the money back. In Patel v Mirza, the Supreme Court held:

1. AThe money passed to the state as illegal proceeds
2. BA could not recover, because no claim can be founded on an illegal agreement
3. CA could recover the money, applying a policy-based approach to illegality
4. DA could recover only half the money

Workmen leave an open manhole with paraffin lamps. A boy knocks a lamp in, causing an unexpected explosion and burns. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the defendants were:

1. ALiable, because burns were a foreseeable type of harm
2. BNot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
3. CLiable only for half of the damage
4. DNot liable, because the explosion was unforeseeable

An internal auditor with a grudge against his employer leaks staff payroll data online. In WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants (2020), the Supreme Court held the employer:

1. AVicariously liable, as data breaches are strict liability
2. BLiable only to staff whose data was used for fraud
3. CNot vicariously liable, as he was pursuing a personal vendetta
4. DVicariously liable, as he had access to the data through his job

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

1. AFraud, mistake and duress
2. BLegality, legitimacy and proportionality
3. CJurisdiction, motive and fairness
4. DIllegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety

The Wednesbury unreasonableness test asks whether a decision is:

1. AUnpopular with the public
2. BSo unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
3. CDifferent from what the judge would have decided on the same evidence
4. DSlightly less than ideal

D and V are playing a properly organised rugby match. D tackles V within the rules and V breaks a leg. D is most likely:

1. ALiable for battery, because consent is never a defence to serious bodily harm
2. BLiable for GBH, because a serious injury was caused
3. CNot liable, because players consent to injuries within the rules of the game
4. DLiable, because rugby is not a recognised sport

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

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

Under the subsidiarity protocol, a "yellow card" is triggered when reasoned opinions represent at least:

1. ATwo member state governments
2. BOne third of the votes allocated to national parliaments
3. CA simple majority of the votes of the Members of the European Parliament
4. DAll national parliaments

In Solange II (1986), the German Federal Constitutional Court held that it would not review Community law against German fundamental rights:

1. AAs long as the Community ensured effective protection of fundamental rights substantially similar to the German standard
2. BUntil Germany adopted the euro
3. CUnless the European Parliament had approved the measure
4. DUnder any circumstances, as Community law is always supreme