Formula sheets, the key method steps for every topic and 10 practice problems, with full solutions at the back.
Under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, money paid before a frustrating event is generally:
Which statement about the parol evidence rule is correct?
The Wagon Mound case concerns which issue?
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:
In Golder v UK, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 6 includes:
Officers enter a writer's house and seize his papers under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State with no legal authority to issue it. In Entick v Carrington, the court held:
D drives on the pavement to escape a man who is threatening to kill him. The most suitable defence is:
R v Gomez (1993) held that an appropriation in theft:
In Levin (1982), the Court held that a part-time worker is protected by Article 45 if the work is:
In Åkerberg Fransson (2013), a Swedish fisherman faced tax penalties and criminal proceedings for VAT fraud. The Court held that the Charter applied because:
Answer: D · Recoverable, though the court may let the payee keep some for expenses
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Sums paid are recoverable and sums payable cease to be payable. The court may allow the payee to keep or recover an amount for expenses incurred, up to the sums paid or payable.
Answer: D · Evidence outside a written contract is generally not admitted to add to or vary its terms
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Where a contract is wholly in writing, extrinsic evidence cannot usually add to or contradict it, although exceptions exist (for example collateral contracts or rectification).
Answer: D · Remoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
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.
Answer: D · There was no Rylands liability, because supplying water by pipe was not a non-natural use
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.
Answer: C · A right of access to a court
Jurisdiction: European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that the fair trial guarantees would be meaningless without the right to bring a case to court in the first place.
Answer: B · The search was unlawful, because state action needs legal authority
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The government cannot interfere with property or liberty without a legal basis. State necessity is not a justification. The case is a foundation of the principle of legality.
Answer: C · Duress of circumstances
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Duress of circumstances applies where the defendant reasonably believed there was a threat of death or serious injury from the situation and responded as a reasonable person would.
Answer: B · Can occur even when the owner consents, if the consent was obtained by deception
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Gomez held that any assumption of the rights of an owner is an appropriation, whether or not the owner consented, overruling the narrower view in Morris.
Answer: D · Effective and genuine, and not purely marginal and ancillary
Jurisdiction: EU law. Part-time work counts if it is genuine and effective, even if earnings are below subsistence level, and the motives for moving are not relevant.
Answer: B · The national measures fell within the scope of EU law on VAT and the EU's financial interests
Jurisdiction: EU law. The Court read "implementing EU law" as acting within the scope of EU law, so ne bis in idem under Article 50 of the Charter could apply.
ExamProblems · examproblems.com/courses/introduction-to-law