Introduction to Law: cram pack

A holiday company provides a holiday far below the promised standard. Can the customer recover damages for disappointment?

1. AOnly if the company acted dishonestly
2. BNo, because mental distress is never recoverable in contract
3. CYes, because the contract's purpose was to provide enjoyment
4. DOnly if the customer suffered a physical injury

Mutual mistake as to the existence of the subject matter (for example the goods no longer exist when contracting) usually makes the contract:

1. AValid, with compensation set by the court
2. BVoidable at either party's option
3. CVoid
4. DFully valid, with the buyer bearing the risk

Rylands v Fletcher liability concerns:

1. AMedical negligence
2. BEscape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use
3. CDefamation in newspapers
4. DLiability for any harm caused by careless use of land, even without escape

A "novus actus interveniens" can:

1. ABreak the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm
2. BTurn a civil claim into a criminal one when the intervening act is an offence
3. CCreate a new duty of care
4. DIncrease the damages owed

In R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex p Pinochet (No 2), the House of Lords set aside its own earlier decision because:

1. AThe case had been heard in private
2. BThe judges had made a legal mistake
3. COne judge had links to a charity that was a party to the case
4. DPinochet had not been given a lawyer of his own choice at the hearing

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

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

For malicious wounding or inflicting GBH under section 20 OAPA, the defendant must at least have foreseen:

1. AThat some physical harm might result
2. BNothing, because it is strict liability
3. CThat serious harm would certainly result
4. DThat the victim would die

In the Dutch "Opticien" judgment (Hoge Raad, 1923), an optician sold glasses after closing time to a man who had broken his. The court recognised:

1. AMental disorder as an excuse under Article 39 Sr
2. BSelf-defence of property under Article 41 Sr
3. CNecessity (noodtoestand) as a form of overmacht under Article 40 Sr
4. DAn official order (ambtelijk bevel) as a justification under Article 43 Sr

The Cassis de Dijon judgment introduced:

1. AMutual recognition and mandatory requirements as justifications for indistinctly applicable measures
2. BEU citizenship
3. CThe rule that indistinctly applicable measures can be justified only on the grounds listed exhaustively in Article 36 TFEU
4. DState liability

In Plaumann (1963), a clementine importer challenged a Commission decision addressed to Germany. The Court held that a non-addressee is individually concerned only if:

1. AThey belong to the economic sector affected and carry on the commercial activity that the act regulates, like any other importer
2. BThe act affects them because of attributes or circumstances that distinguish them from all other persons
3. CThey suffer a financial loss from the act
4. DThey have written to the Commission before the act