1Practice problems
1.Contract lawMedium
In Hadley v Baxendale, damages are recoverable for losses that:
- AWere caused in any factual sense by the breach, however unusual and unforeseeable they were
- BThe claimant suffered only after the trial
- CWere caused by a third party
- DArise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties
2.Contract lawHard
An actress is wrongly denied the chance to take part in the final stage of a competition in which some finalists would win prizes. In Chaplin v Hicks:
- AShe could recover the full value of a prize
- BShe could recover only her travel expenses
- CShe could recover nothing, because her loss was uncertain
- DShe could recover damages for the loss of a chance
3.Tort lawMedium
A firefighter is injured by a heavy jack in an unsuitable lorry rushed to rescue a woman trapped under a vehicle. Under Watt v Hertfordshire CC, the fire authority was:
- ANegligent, because firefighters must never take risks
- BNot negligent, because saving life justified the risk
- CStrictly liable for injuries to employees
- DNegligent, because it used an unsuitable vehicle
4.Tort lawHard
A prisoner known to be a suicide risk kills himself in a police cell after officers leave the door hatch open. In Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the House of Lords held:
- AThe police were not liable, because a sane adult's suicide is always a voluntary act breaking the chain
- BHis deliberate act broke the chain of causation
- CHis deliberate act did not break the chain, because it was the very thing the duty aimed to prevent
- DThe claim failed because of illegality
5.Constitutional lawMedium
In Bellinger v Bellinger, the House of Lords could not read the marriage law to recognise a trans woman's marriage to a man, so it:
- AStruck down the relevant provision
- BReferred the case to Strasbourg
- CRead the statute compatibly under section 3
- DMade a declaration of incompatibility
6.Constitutional lawHard
Article 79(3) of the German Basic Law (the "eternity clause") forbids amendments that affect:
- AAny article of the Basic Law at all
- BOnly the articles on taxation
- CThe electoral system, the number of seats in the Bundestag, or any of the rules in Articles 38 to 48 on elections
- DThe federal structure, the Länder's participation in legislation, or the principles in Articles 1 and 20
7.Criminal lawMedium
D swaps price labels on two items in a supermarket, intending to pay the lower price. Following R v Morris, the appropriation took place when D:
- ASwitched the labels, assuming one of the owner's rights
- BPaid at the checkout
- CPut the item in the trolley
- DLeft the shop without paying
8.Criminal lawHard
The principle of "ne bis in idem" means that:
- ATwo judges must hear every case
- BA person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence
- CEvery crime must be punished twice
- DAppeals are forbidden
9.EU lawMedium
The ordinary legislative procedure gives equal law-making roles to:
- AThe European Council and the Central Bank
- BNational parliaments and the Commission
- CThe European Parliament and the Council
- DThe Commission and the Court of Justice
10.EU lawHard
The CILFIT criteria describe when a court of last instance does NOT have to make a preliminary reference, for example when:
- AThe case is urgent for the government
- BThe question is politically sensitive and the government has formally asked the court not to refer it
- CThe parties prefer not to refer
- DThe correct interpretation is so obvious as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt (acte clair)
2Solutions
1.Contract law
Answer: D · Arise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The two limbs: losses arising naturally, and losses both parties could have contemplated when contracting because of special knowledge.
D · Arise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties
2.Contract law
Answer: D · She could recover damages for the loss of a chance
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The court held that the loss of a real chance can be valued. The difficulty of assessing damages does not stop the claimant recovering.
D · She could recover damages for the loss of a chance
3.Tort law
Answer: B · Not negligent, because saving life justified the risk
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The purpose of the defendant's act is relevant. The urgency of saving life justified taking a risk that would be unreasonable in an ordinary commercial setting.
B · Not negligent, because saving life justified the risk
4.Tort law
Answer: C · His deliberate act did not break the chain, because it was the very thing the duty aimed to prevent
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Where the duty is to guard against the claimant's own deliberate act, that act cannot break the chain of causation. Damages were reduced for contributory negligence.
C · His deliberate act did not break the chain, because it was the very thing the duty aimed to prevent
5.Constitutional law
Answer: D · Made a declaration of incompatibility
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The issue raised wide social questions best left to Parliament, so a compatible reading was not appropriate. Parliament responded with the 2004 Act.
D · Made a declaration of incompatibility
6.Constitutional law
Answer: D · The federal structure, the Länder's participation in legislation, or the principles in Articles 1 and 20
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: German law. Some core principles, including human dignity, democracy, the rule of law and federalism, cannot be changed even by the normal two-thirds majorities.
D · The federal structure, the Länder's participation in legislation, or the principles in Articles 1 and 20
7.Criminal law
Answer: A · Switched the labels, assuming one of the owner's rights
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Morris held that assuming any one of the owner's rights, such as labelling goods, is an appropriation, even before leaving the shop.
A · Switched the labels, assuming one of the owner's rights
8.Criminal law
Answer: B · A person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: general principle, found in most legal systems. Ne bis in idem (Article 4 of Protocol 7 ECHR, Article 50 EU Charter, Article 68 Sr) protects against being prosecuted again after a final judgment for the same facts, with limited exceptions.
B · A person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence
9.EU law
Answer: C · The European Parliament and the Council
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. Under Article 294 TFEU, legislation is adopted jointly by Parliament and Council on a proposal from the Commission.
C · The European Parliament and the Council
10.EU law
Answer: D · The correct interpretation is so obvious as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt (acte clair)
Why this is the answer
Jurisdiction: EU law. Courts of last instance need not refer if the question is irrelevant, already answered (acte éclairé), or the answer is clear beyond reasonable doubt (acte clair), refined in Consorzio Italian Management.
D · The correct interpretation is so obvious as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt (acte clair)