Introduction to Law: cram pack

A former wife sues for maintenance her ex-husband promised, relying only on promissory estoppel because she gave no consideration. In Combe v Combe:

1. AShe succeeded, because she relied on the promise
2. BShe failed, because promissory estoppel is a shield, not a sword
3. CShe succeeded, because the promise was made in writing
4. DShe failed, because family agreements are never legally binding on either party

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. BVoidable for the directors' misrepresentation by failing to disclose their misconduct
3. CValid, because the mistake about quality was not fundamental enough
4. DVoid for common mistake about the contracts

Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:

1. A25%
2. B50%
3. C75%
4. D10%

The defence of "illegality" (ex turpi causa) in tort means that:

1. AOnly the state can bring the claim
2. BEvery claimant with a criminal record loses
3. CThe defendant cannot be sued if the defendant's own conduct towards the claimant was itself a criminal offence
4. DA claimant may be barred from recovering where the claim arises from their own serious illegal conduct

In CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case), Lord Diplock classified the grounds of judicial review as:

1. AIllegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
2. BJurisdiction, motive and fairness
3. CLegality, legitimacy and proportionality
4. DFraud, mistake and duress

In the Case of Proclamations (1610), the court held that the King:

1. ACould dismiss judges who disagreed
2. BCould suspend Acts of Parliament
3. CCould not create new offences by proclamation
4. DCould change any law by proclamation

A, a lifeguard paid to watch a pool, reads a magazine while a child drowns. A could be liable for an omission because of:

1. AA contractual duty to act
2. BA special relationship with the child's parents
3. CHaving created the dangerous situation
4. DBeing the only person who saw the child

In R v Cheshire, the court held that negligent medical treatment of a gunshot victim:

1. AAlways breaks the chain of causation
2. BBroke the chain of causation whenever it was negligent enough to be the immediate medical cause of death, even if the wound still operated
3. CMakes the doctors liable for murder
4. DDid not break the chain of causation unless it was so independent and potent that the original wound became insignificant

An agreement caught by Article 101(1) TFEU may be exempted under Article 101(3) if, among other conditions, it:

1. AInvolves companies with combined market shares over 50%
2. BHas been in operation for more than five years
3. CImproves production or distribution and allows consumers a fair share of the benefit
4. DIs notified to and approved by the Commission or the national competition authority in advance

In CIA Security (1996), Belgian technical rules not notified to the Commission as required by a directive were held to be:

1. AValid, because directives do not have horizontal direct effect
2. BValid until the Commission brings infringement proceedings
3. CInapplicable, even in a dispute between private competitors
4. DVoid only in disputes against the Belgian state