Introduction to Law: cram pack

A customer signs a contract containing an exclusion clause without reading it. Absent fraud or misrepresentation, the clause is generally:

1. AIncorporated, because a signature binds the signer
2. BVoid for unilateral mistake
3. CNot incorporated, because it was not read
4. DIncorporated only if it was explained orally

An employer pays large severance sums to two directors, later discovering it could have dismissed them for nothing because of their earlier misconduct. In Bell v Lever Bros, the agreements were:

1. AUnenforceable because severance needs a deed
2. BVoid for common mistake about the contracts
3. CValid, because the mistake about quality was not fundamental enough
4. DVoidable for the directors' misrepresentation by failing to disclose their misconduct

Pure economic loss caused by negligent acts is:

1. AGenerally not recoverable, with exceptions such as negligent misstatement
2. BRecoverable only where the defendant's conduct was also a criminal offence of some kind
3. CRecoverable only for companies
4. DAlways recoverable

Under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, the public interest defence requires that:

1. AThe statement is shown to be substantially true
2. BThe statement was made in Parliament or in court
3. CThe statement was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest
4. DThe statement was on a matter of public interest and the defendant honestly believed that every factual claim it contained was true

A minister refuses to refer a complaint to a committee because the result might embarrass the government. In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, the House of Lords held:

1. AThe refusal was lawful, since the Act imposed no duty to give reasons
2. BOnly Parliament could question the minister
3. CThe refusal was unlawful, as it frustrated the purpose of the Act
4. DThe minister had unlimited discretion

The government tried to stop publication of a former Cabinet minister's diaries. In AG v Jonathan Cape (the Crossman diaries case), the court held that:

1. ACourts can never restrain publication of political material
2. BCabinet discussions could be protected as confidential, but the material was now too old to restrain
3. CMinisters' diaries are always Crown property
4. DThe convention of Cabinet secrecy is directly enforceable law, so publication of the diaries had to be restrained

D throws a paving stone off a bridge onto a train, killing the guard. D did not think anyone would be hurt. Following DPP v Newbury and Jones, D is guilty of:

1. AMurder, as the act was likely to kill
2. BNo offence, as D did not subjectively foresee any risk of harm to anyone at all
3. CGross negligence manslaughter only
4. DUnlawful act manslaughter, as the act was unlawful and objectively dangerous

In R v Sullivan (1984), D injured a friend during an epileptic seizure. The House of Lords held:

1. AEpilepsy was a "disease of the mind" in law, so the defence was insanity
2. BD was guilty because he knew he was epileptic
3. CEpilepsy was an external factor, so the defence was automatism
4. DOnly psychiatric illnesses can be diseases of the mind

The ordinary legislative procedure gives equal law-making roles to:

1. ANational parliaments and the Commission
2. BThe European Council and the Central Bank
3. CThe Commission and the Court of Justice
4. DThe European Parliament and the Council

Altmark Trans (2003) set conditions under which compensation for public service obligations:

1. AIs not state aid because it confers no advantage
2. BIs always prohibited state aid
3. CMust be approved by the European Parliament
4. DCan only be paid to state-owned companies