Introduction to Law: cram pack

Under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, a person who made a false statement inducing a contract is liable in damages unless:

1. AThe contract was made between two businesses
2. BThe statement was made orally and not in writing
3. CThey prove they had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, it was true
4. DThe claimant proves that the statement was made fraudulently and not merely carelessly

A buyer purchases oats thinking they are old oats. The seller knows they are new, but made no statement or promise that they were old. Under Smith v Hughes:

1. AThe contract is binding, because a mistake about quality alone is not enough
2. BThe contract is voidable, because the seller's silence amounted to a misrepresentation
3. CThe seller had a duty to correct the buyer
4. DThe contract is void for unilateral mistake

An occupier hires a reputable lift company to maintain a lift. The company's negligence causes an accident. Under Haseldine v Daw, the occupier is:

1. ALiable only if the lift is new
2. BNot liable, if it reasonably chose a competent contractor
3. CLiable, because maintenance is non-delegable
4. DLiable for any defect on its premises

Under the EU Product Liability Directive, the "development risks" defence allows a producer to escape liability if:

1. AThe producer was not negligent in manufacturing
2. BThe consumer did not read the instructions
3. CThe product was sold at a low price
4. DThe state of scientific and technical knowledge when the product was circulated did not allow the defect to be discovered

Under section 2 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, UK courts must, when deciding Convention rights questions:

1. ATake into account judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
2. BIgnore Strasbourg case law
3. CRefer all questions to Strasbourg
4. DFollow every relevant Strasbourg judgment strictly, as binding precedent

Walter Bagehot described the "efficient secret" of the English constitution as:

1. AThe monarch's power to veto legislation
2. BThe close union of the executive and legislative powers
3. CThe strict separation of all three powers
4. DThe independence of the House of Lords

D grabs V's handbag so forcefully that V's hand is pulled down. Following R v Clouden, this can be:

1. ABurglary, because the bag was V's property
2. BOnly battery, because the bag was not taken
3. COnly theft, because there was no direct contact with V's body
4. DRobbery, because force was used on the person to steal

In R v Cunningham (1957), D tore a gas meter off a wall to steal money; gas leaked and poisoned a neighbour. The court held "maliciously" means:

1. AIntending the harm or foreseeing the risk of it and taking it anyway
2. BActing in a way that is against the law
3. CActing with wickedness or ill will towards the victim, as in ordinary usage
4. DFailing to notice a risk an ordinary person would see

In Simmenthal (1978), the Court of Justice held that a national court faced with a national law conflicting with EU law must:

1. AWait for the national constitutional court to annul the law before it can disapply it
2. BApply the national law if it was adopted later
3. CSet the national law aside of its own motion, without waiting for it to be repealed
4. DAsk the national parliament to amend the law first

In Aranyosi and Căldăraru (2016), the Court held that a judicial authority executing a European Arrest Warrant:

1. AMust ask the European Court of Human Rights for permission
2. BCan refuse any warrant from a state it distrusts in general
3. CMay postpone surrender if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions for that person
4. DMust always surrender the person, whatever the prison conditions