Introduction to Law: cram pack

A builder makes a swimming pool shallower than agreed. It is still safe and no less valuable, and rebuilding would cost far more than any benefit. In Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth the owner received:

1. AA modest sum for loss of amenity
2. BA full refund of the contract price
3. CNothing, as there was no loss in value
4. DThe full cost of rebuilding the pool

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, the court held that the advertisement was:

1. AA contract only with the newspaper
2. BA unilateral offer that could be accepted by performing the conditions
3. CAn invitation to treat
4. DA mere advertising puff with no legal effect, since no one could take it seriously

Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:

1. A10%
2. B25%
3. C75%
4. D50%

After drinking together for hours, a man agrees to fly with an obviously very drunk pilot, and the plane crashes. In Morris v Murray, the passenger's claim:

1. ASucceeded, with damages reduced for contributory negligence
2. BSucceeded, because volenti never applies to passengers
3. CFailed, because he voluntarily accepted the risk
4. DFailed, because of illegality

Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health is cited for the principle that:

1. ACourts may refuse to apply a later Act
2. BParliament can entrench an Act against later repeal by stating expressly that it may not be amended in future
3. CParliament cannot bind its successors, and a later Act impliedly repeals an inconsistent earlier one
4. DEarlier Acts always prevail over later Acts

In Miller II (2019), the UK Supreme Court found the prorogation of Parliament unlawful because:

1. AIt was decided by a referendum
2. BThe Queen refused to approve it
3. CIt frustrated Parliament's constitutional functions without reasonable justification
4. DIt violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR by interfering with the right to free elections

D takes V's bag and is seen; a few seconds later D ties V up to escape. Following R v Hale, D is guilty of robbery because:

1. AThe bag was later recovered by the police
2. BTying up a victim is robbery even without theft
3. CAny force used on the victim within an hour of the theft automatically turns it into robbery
4. DAppropriation is a continuing act, so the force was used at the time of the theft

In R v Malcherek and Steel (1981), doctors switched off life-support machines after diagnosing brain death. The court held:

1. AThe doctors became the legal cause of death by deliberately switching off the machines
2. BThe victims died of natural causes in law
3. CSwitching off did not break the chain; the original assailants caused the deaths
4. DThe defendants were guilty only of attempted murder

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970) held that the validity of a Community measure:

1. ARequires approval by a national referendum
2. BCannot be affected by claims that it breaches national constitutional rights
3. CDepends on its compatibility with the fundamental rights in each national constitution
4. DCan be reviewed by any national court that doubts it

In Centros (1999), a Danish couple registered a company in the UK to avoid Danish minimum capital rules and sought to open a branch in Denmark. The Court held:

1. ARefusing to register the branch breached the freedom of establishment
2. BThe UK was required to dissolve the company
3. CCompanies have no right of establishment under EU law
4. DDenmark could refuse because the company was set up to avoid Danish law