Introduction to Law: cram pack

A doctor selling his practice truthfully states its income, but the income falls sharply before the contract is signed and he says nothing. This is:

1. AA mere opinion about future income
2. BA misrepresentation, because he should have corrected the statement
3. CNot a misrepresentation, because the statement was true when it was made
4. DA breach of an implied condition of quality

Two parties agree to continue negotiating for the sale of a business, with no fixed period. In Walford v Miles, the House of Lords held that a bare agreement to negotiate in good faith is:

1. AUnenforceable, because it lacks certainty
2. BEnforceable, as an implied duty of good faith
3. CEnforceable only if made in writing
4. DEnforceable as a lock-out agreement

A doctor builds a consulting room next to a confectioner whose noisy machines had operated for years without complaint. Can the confectioner defend a nuisance claim by saying the doctor "came to the nuisance"?

1. AYes, the doctor accepted the noise by building there
2. BNo, because doctors have special protection
3. CYes, because the machines were used first
4. DNo, coming to the nuisance is not a defence

A man's leg is injured by a negligent driver. Later, robbers shoot the same leg and it is amputated. In Baker v Willoughby, the driver:

1. ARemained liable for the original disability after the shooting
2. BWas liable only until the shooting
3. CWas liable for the amputation too
4. DWas released completely from liability by the robbers' later shooting

In R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex p Pinochet (No 2), the House of Lords set aside its own earlier decision because:

1. AThe judges had made a legal mistake
2. BOne judge had links to a charity that was a party to the case
3. CThe case had been heard in private
4. DPinochet had not been given a lawyer of his own choice at the hearing

In Miller II (2019), the UK Supreme Court found the prorogation of Parliament unlawful because:

1. AIt frustrated Parliament's constitutional functions without reasonable justification
2. BThe Queen refused to approve it
3. CIt was decided by a referendum
4. DIt violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR by interfering with the right to free elections

D buys a substance believing it is heroin and intends to sell it on. In fact it is harmless powder. Following R v Shivpuri, D is:

1. ANot guilty, because the substance was harmless
2. BGuilty of attempt, as impossibility is no defence under the 1981 Act
3. CNot guilty, because attempting the impossible is no offence under the 1981 Act
4. DGuilty of the full offence of dealing drugs

Which principle comes from DPP v Majewski (1977)?

1. ADrunkenness reduces murder to manslaughter in every case
2. BIntoxication can never be considered by a jury
3. CVoluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent
4. DInvoluntary intoxication is always a complete defence

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

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

In Van Duyn v Home Office (1974), a Dutch Scientologist was refused entry to the UK. The Court held that:

1. AThe UK could not rely on public policy, because membership of a lawful organisation is never personal conduct for that purpose
2. BReligious organisations are fully protected by free movement law
3. CA directive provision could have direct effect, and present association with an organisation could count as personal conduct
4. DDirectives can never have direct effect