Introduction to Law: cram pack

A builder's job takes much longer and costs much more than planned because of labour shortages. Under Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, the contract is:

1. ANot frustrated, because it has only become more onerous
2. BAutomatically varied to a reasonable price
3. CFrustrated, because the costs rose unexpectedly and substantially
4. DVoid, because the price was wrongly estimated

A client repudiates an advertising contract the same day it is made. The agency ignores this, displays the adverts for the full period and sues for the price. In White and Carter v McGregor:

1. AThe agency could only claim damages after mitigating
2. BThe agency had to obtain a court order first
3. CThe agency could recover nothing
4. DThe agency could recover the full price

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

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

A tannery spills small amounts of solvent over many years. It seeps underground and contaminates a water company's borehole, which nobody could have foreseen. In Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather:

1. AThe tannery was not liable, because the type of damage was not foreseeable
2. BThe tannery was liable in negligence instead
3. CThe water company was barred by contributory negligence
4. DThe tannery was liable, because Rylands liability is strict and needs no foreseeability

In R (Jackson) v Attorney General, the House of Lords held that:

1. AThe Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 passed under it were valid
2. BThe House of Lords could veto any bill permanently
3. CActs passed under the Parliament Acts were merely invalid delegated legislation
4. DThe Hunting Act was incompatible with Convention rights

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 breached only EU competition law
3. CThe fees were lawful because Parliament authorised fees
4. DThe fees were unlawful because they prevented access to justice

D grabs V's handbag so forcefully that V's hand is pulled down. Following R v Clouden, this can be:

1. ABurglary, because the bag was V's property
2. BOnly battery, because the bag was not taken
3. COnly theft, because there was no direct contact with V's body
4. DRobbery, because force was used on the person to steal

In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993), the House of Lords held that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state:

1. AWas a positive act of killing, amounting to murder
2. BWas lawful because the patient had made an advance decision
3. CWas lawful only because the patient's family had given consent, which is required for any such withdrawal
4. DWas an omission that was lawful because continued treatment was no longer in the patient's best interests

Under Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Charter binds member states:

1. AOnly when they are implementing EU law
2. BNever, as it binds only the EU institutions
3. COnly when their constitution allows it
4. DIn all their activities, including purely national matters

In Opinion 2/13 (2014), the Court of Justice held that the draft agreement on EU accession to the ECHR:

1. AWas incompatible with the Treaties, in part because it threatened the autonomy of EU law
2. BCould only be ratified by a referendum in each state
3. CWas unnecessary because the EU had already acceded
4. DWas compatible with the Treaties, provided the Council approved it unanimously after consulting Parliament