Introduction to Law: cram pack

A buyer is told false figures about a business and is offered documents that would reveal the truth, but does not read them. Under Redgrave v Hurd:

1. AThe buyer loses all remedies by failing to check
2. BThe buyer can still rely on the misrepresentation
3. CThe misrepresentation becomes a term
4. DThe buyer can claim only half the loss

A seller mistakenly offers hare skins at a price per pound instead of per piece. The buyer knew that prices were always quoted per piece. In Hartog v Colin and Shields:

1. AThere was a binding contract at the stated price
2. BThe court rewrote the price to per piece
3. CThe contract was voidable at the buyer's option
4. DThere was no contract, as the buyer knew of the mistake

A milkman, forbidden by his employer to give lifts, lets a boy ride on his float to help deliver milk. The boy is injured by the milkman's negligence. In Rose v Plenty, the employer was:

1. AVicariously liable, because the boy was helping with the employer's work
2. BNot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
3. CLiable only if the milkman had no insurance
4. DNot liable, because giving lifts had been expressly forbidden by the employer

In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services, the court allowed claims against employers even though the "but for" test could not be met because:

1. ASeveral employers had exposed the victim to asbestos and it was impossible to say which caused the mesothelioma
2. BThe employers admitted intention
3. CThe victims had signed contracts with all the employers, which expressly allocated liability for asbestos disease
4. DThe House of Lords abolished causation

In the GCHQ case, the House of Lords held that the exercise of prerogative powers:

1. ACan be reviewed only if Parliament agrees
2. BCan be judicially reviewed, depending on its subject matter
3. CCan never be reviewed by the courts
4. DIs always fully reviewable, whatever subject matter it concerns

The government introduces high fees for bringing claims to employment tribunals, and the number of claims falls sharply. In R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017), the Supreme Court held:

1. AThe fees were lawful because users of the courts must pay for them
2. BThe fees were unlawful because they prevented access to justice
3. CThe fees were lawful because Parliament authorised fees
4. DThe fees breached only EU competition law

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. AAppropriation is a continuing act, so the force was used at the time of the theft
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. DThe bag was later recovered by the police

R v Gomez (1993) held that an appropriation in theft:

1. ARequires a physical taking of the property
2. BCan occur even when the owner consents, if the consent was obtained by deception
3. CRequires that the act was not authorised by the owner, even if consent was obtained by fraud
4. DOnly occurs when the defendant leaves the shop

In Lawrie-Blum (1986), the Court defined a "worker" under Article 45 TFEU as a person who:

1. AIs registered with a national trade union
2. BHolds a permanent full-time contract of employment registered with the authorities of the host member state
3. CEarns at least the national minimum wage for a year
4. DPerforms services for and under the direction of another in return for remuneration

In Commission v Italy (Art Treasures, 1968), Italy taxed the export of artistic and historical works. The Court held that:

1. AThe tax was justified under Article 36 to protect national treasures of artistic or historic value
2. BArt is not "goods", so the free movement rules did not apply
3. CExport taxes are outside the scope of the customs union
4. DThe tax was a charge having equivalent effect and was prohibited regardless of its purpose