Introduction to Law: cram pack

Sailors are promised extra wages for sailing a ship home after two crew members desert, but they do no more than their contract already required. In Stilk v Myrick the promise was:

1. AEnforceable as a practical benefit
2. BUnenforceable for lack of consideration
3. CEnforceable because the captain agreed freely
4. DUnenforceable because it was made at sea

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

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

A premature baby goes blind. Excess oxygen negligently given was only one of five possible causes. In Wilsher v Essex AHA, the claim:

1. AFailed, because no duty was owed to a baby
2. BSucceeded, because the negligence materially increased the risk of the blindness
3. CFailed, because the claimant could not prove the negligence caused the blindness
4. DSucceeded, with damages reduced by four fifths

Police officers arresting a suspect in a busy street knock over an elderly pedestrian. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the Supreme Court held:

1. AA duty was owed, since the police caused harm by a positive act
2. BA duty arose only because she was a victim of crime
3. CNo duty was owed, as the Caparo test was not met for police operations
4. DNo duty was owed, because the police are immune

Under the UK Human Rights Act 1998, if a court cannot read an Act compatibly with Convention rights, it can:

1. AOrder Parliament to amend the Act within a month
2. BMake a declaration of incompatibility, leaving the Act in force
3. CStrike down the Act immediately
4. DRefer the case to the European Court of Human Rights automatically

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

1. AAmend the incompatible legislation by a remedial order
2. BSuspend the Convention right in question
3. COverrule the court's declaration
4. DRefer the case directly to Strasbourg

D supplies heroin to V, an adult, who freely and knowingly injects herself and dies. According to R v Kennedy (No 2), D is:

1. AGuilty of manslaughter, because V's choice is irrelevant
2. BNot guilty of manslaughter, because V's free and informed choice broke the chain of causation
3. CGuilty of manslaughter, because supply always causes the death
4. DGuilty of unlawful act manslaughter, because supplying a class A drug is itself unlawful and dangerous

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

The preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 TFEU allows:

1. ANational courts to ask the CJEU questions on the interpretation or validity of EU law
2. BIndividuals to bring actions against member states directly before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg
3. CThe Parliament to dismiss judges
4. DThe Commission to fine member states

EU citizenship case law (Zambrano) established that a third-country national parent of a child who is an EU citizen may have a right of residence when:

1. AThe child is older than 18
2. BThe parent has lived lawfully in the child's member state for at least five years before applying for residence
3. CThe parent pays a residence fee
4. DRefusal would deprive the child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of EU citizenship rights