Introduction to Law: cram pack

A decorator finishes the work but with minor defects that are cheap to fix. Under Hoenig v Isaacs, the decorator is entitled to:

1. ANothing, because performance was not exact
2. BOnly payment for the materials used
3. CThe full price with no deduction
4. DThe price less the cost of putting the defects right

Specific performance is usually ordered when:

1. AThe defendant has no money
2. BThe contract involves personal services, such as employment or performance contracts
3. CDamages would be an inadequate remedy, for example for unique goods or land
4. DThe claimant asks for it in any case

An employer does not give goggles to a worker already blind in one eye, who loses his good eye at work. Under Paris v Stepney BC, the employer was:

1. ANegligent, because the possible harm to this worker was very serious
2. BStrictly liable for all eye injuries
3. CNot negligent, because the risk of an accident was the same for all workers
4. DNot negligent, because goggles were not normally provided

Under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013, the honest opinion defence requires that the statement:

1. AWas an opinion, indicated its basis, and an honest person could have held it on the facts
2. BWas made with no intention to harm
3. CWas a statement of fact, indicated its source, and was shown to be substantially true by the defendant
4. DWas published by a professional journalist

Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) imposes on states a positive obligation to:

1. AGuarantee that no citizen ever dies
2. BTake appropriate steps to safeguard lives within their jurisdiction
3. CAbolish all police forces
4. DGuarantee free housing and healthcare to everyone within their territory

In Ireland v UK (1978), the European Court of Human Rights held that the "five techniques" used in interrogating detainees in Northern Ireland were:

1. ATorture under Article 3
2. BA breach of Article 5 only
3. CLawful because of the emergency
4. DInhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture

D, being pursued by armed police, uses V as a human shield and fires at the officers. The police return fire and kill V. Following R v Pagett, D is:

1. ALiable, because the police acted reasonably in self-defence and did not break the chain of causation
2. BNot liable, because V's death was not foreseeable to D
3. CNot liable, because the police officers' decision to fire was a free, deliberate and informed intervening act
4. DLiable only if the police officers are also convicted

In the Dutch "Melk-en-water" judgment (Hoge Raad, 1916), the court recognised:

1. AThe legality principle as part of the Constitution
2. BConditional intent as a form of intention
3. CForce majeure as a written justification
4. DAbsence of all blame (AVAS) as an unwritten excuse

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

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

The Weiss (PSPP) judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 2020 was controversial because it:

1. ADeclared a CJEU judgment ultra vires and not binding in Germany
2. BWithdrew Germany from the EU
3. CAccepted unlimited supremacy of EU law
4. DAbolished the euro in Germany