Introduction to Law: cram pack

A holiday company provides a holiday far below the promised standard. Can the customer recover damages for disappointment?

1. AOnly if the customer suffered a physical injury
2. BYes, because the contract's purpose was to provide enjoyment
3. CNo, because mental distress is never recoverable in contract
4. DOnly if the company acted dishonestly

A buyer specifically asks a surveyor to check aircraft noise at a property. The surveyor negligently reports no problem. In Farley v Skinner:

1. ADamages for discomfort were recoverable, as peace of mind was an important object of the obligation
2. BThe buyer had to sell the house before claiming
3. CNo damages were recoverable, because damages for distress or discomfort are always excluded in contract
4. DOnly the difference in market value was recoverable

Workmen leave an open manhole with paraffin lamps. A boy knocks a lamp in, causing an unexpected explosion and burns. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the defendants were:

1. ANot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
2. BLiable only for half of the damage
3. CNot liable, because the explosion was unforeseeable
4. DLiable, because burns were a foreseeable type of harm

Intruders start a fire in an empty, locked cinema, which spreads to neighbouring buildings. The owner did not know of earlier break-ins. In Smith v Littlewoods, the owner was:

1. AStrictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher
2. BLiable, because occupiers must guard against all intruders
3. CLiable, because fire spreading is always foreseeable
4. DNot liable, because it had no knowledge of the risk

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

1. ALegality, legitimacy and proportionality
2. BFraud, mistake and duress
3. CJurisdiction, motive and fairness
4. DIllegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety

People buy TV licences early to avoid a fee increase, and the Home Office threatens to revoke them unless they pay the extra. In Congreve v Home Office, the court held:

1. AThe minister could act for any purpose
2. BThe revocation was lawful under the statute
3. CLicence holders had no legal rights
4. DUsing the revocation power this way was unlawful

D parks his car on a police officer's foot by accident, then refuses to move it once told. Under Fagan v MPC, this is:

1. AA mere omission without any duty to act
2. BA battery, because the act was continuing when the mens rea arose
3. COnly criminal damage to the officer's shoe
4. DNo offence, because the original act was accidental and mens rea arose only afterwards

In R v Jordan (1956), the court held the chain of causation was broken because:

1. AThe medical treatment was "palpably wrong" and the wound had mainly healed
2. BThe victim had an unusually thin skull
3. CThe victim refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons, which was unforeseeable
4. DA second attacker stabbed the victim again in hospital

Francovich (1991) established that:

1. AMember states can be liable to pay damages for failing to implement a directive
2. BIndividuals can enforce unimplemented directives directly against private employers
3. CThe Commission can annul national laws
4. DDirectives have horizontal direct effect

Under the indirect effect principle (Von Colson, Marleasing), national courts must:

1. AIgnore national law that conflicts with any directive in private disputes
2. BApply directives only after the Commission approves
3. CRefer every case to the Court of Justice
4. DInterpret national law as far as possible in conformity with directives