Introduction to Law: cram pack

Formula sheets, the key method steps for every topic and 10 practice problems, with full solutions at the back.

New problemsBack to the course

In the print window, choose “Save as PDF” to keep a copy on your device.

1Practice problems

1.Contract lawMedium

A court will imply a term in fact into a commercial contract only if:

  1. AIt is necessary for business efficacy or so obvious it goes without saying
  2. BIt would be reasonable and fair to both parties, even if it is not necessary
  3. CIt is usual in contracts in other industries
  4. DIt would benefit the weaker party
2.Contract lawHard

Under the EU Unfair Terms Directive, a non-negotiated consumer contract term is unfair if:

  1. AThe consumer did not read it
  2. BIt was written in small font
  3. CContrary to good faith, it causes a significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment
  4. DIt benefits the trader in any way, even where the consumer's rights are not significantly affected
3.Tort lawMedium

After a flood makes a factory floor slippery, the owner spreads sawdust but not everywhere, and a worker slips. Under Latimer v AEC, the owner was:

  1. ANegligent, because it should have closed the factory until the floor was dry
  2. BNegligent, because any slip proves a breach
  3. CNot negligent, because closing the factory would have been out of proportion
  4. DStrictly liable for flood damage
4.Tort lawHard

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 for the amputation too
  3. CWas released completely from liability by the robbers' later shooting
  4. DWas liable only until the shooting
5.Constitutional lawMedium

Which ground of judicial review applies when a decision-maker ignores a relevant consideration?

  1. ALegitimate expectation only
  2. BNone, because courts never review considerations
  3. CIllegality
  4. DProcedural impropriety only
6.Constitutional lawHard

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 changed the office of Lord Chancellor so that:

  1. AThe Lord Chancellor became President of the Supreme Court and head of the judiciary in England
  2. BThe Lord Chancellor gained power to dismiss judges
  3. CThe Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor, is head of the judiciary in England and Wales
  4. DThe office was abolished completely
7.Criminal lawMedium

D makes repeated silent phone calls to V, causing her psychiatric illness. Following R v Ireland, D can be guilty of:

  1. AOnly a civil wrong, because no physical harm occurred
  2. BAn assault, as silent calls can cause apprehension of immediate force
  3. COnly harassment, because no force was used
  4. DNo offence, because words or silence can never amount to an assault in law
8.Criminal lawHard

In R v Dica (2004), D had sex with partners without telling them he was HIV-positive. The Court of Appeal held that:

  1. AD was guilty of murder, because HIV can kill
  2. BNon-disclosure always makes sex rape under English law
  3. CConsent is never relevant to the transmission of disease, since s20 protects public health
  4. DInformed consent to the risk of infection could be a defence to inflicting GBH under s20
9.EU lawMedium

Environmental policy is an example of which type of EU competence?

  1. ANo EU competence at all
  2. BShared competence
  3. CExclusive competence
  4. DSupporting competence
10.EU lawHard

In Egenberger (2018), the Court held that Article 21 of the Charter (non-discrimination):

  1. ARequires national implementing legislation or secondary EU law before it has any effect in private disputes
  2. BIs a mere principle that cannot be relied on in court
  3. CApplies only to EU institutions and never to private employers
  4. DIs sufficient in itself to confer a right that individuals can rely on in disputes between private parties

2Solutions

1.Contract law

Answer: A · It is necessary for business efficacy or so obvious it goes without saying

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Implication in fact is strict. Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas confirmed that a term is not implied merely because it would be reasonable.

Answer

A · It is necessary for business efficacy or so obvious it goes without saying
2.Contract law

Answer: C · Contrary to good faith, it causes a significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: EU law. Directive 93/13 makes non-individually negotiated terms unfair if, contrary to good faith, they cause a significant imbalance in rights and obligations to the consumer's detriment; such terms do not bind the consumer.

Answer

C · Contrary to good faith, it causes a significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment
3.Tort law

Answer: C · Not negligent, because closing the factory would have been out of proportion

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The owner took reasonable steps. Shutting down the whole factory would have been a burden out of proportion to the risk.

Answer

C · Not negligent, because closing the factory would have been out of proportion
4.Tort law

Answer: A · Remained liable for the original disability after the shooting

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The second tort did not wipe out the first defendant's liability for the continuing effects of the first injury. In Jobling, a later natural disease was treated as one of life's vicissitudes and reduced damages.

Answer

A · Remained liable for the original disability after the shooting
5.Constitutional law

Answer: C · Illegality

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Lord Diplock's grounds are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Taking irrelevant considerations into account, or ignoring relevant ones, is a form of illegality.

Answer

C · Illegality
6.Constitutional law

Answer: C · The Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor, is head of the judiciary in England and Wales

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor had been a minister, a judge and the Speaker of the Lords. The Act moved judicial headship to the Lord Chief Justice and imposed a statutory duty on ministers to uphold judicial independence.

Answer

C · The Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor, is head of the judiciary in England and Wales
7.Criminal law

Answer: B · An assault, as silent calls can cause apprehension of immediate force

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. The House of Lords held that silent calls can be an assault and that recognised psychiatric illness can be actual or grievous bodily harm.

Answer

B · An assault, as silent calls can cause apprehension of immediate force
8.Criminal law

Answer: D · Informed consent to the risk of infection could be a defence to inflicting GBH under s20

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: law of England and Wales. Because the partners did not know of his status, they could not consent to the risk, so D could be guilty of recklessly inflicting GBH; informed consent to the risk could be a defence.

Answer

D · Informed consent to the risk of infection could be a defence to inflicting GBH under s20
9.EU law

Answer: B · Shared competence

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: EU law. In shared areas such as the environment, consumer protection and the internal market, member states may legislate to the extent the EU has not exercised its competence.

Answer

B · Shared competence
10.EU law

Answer: D · Is sufficient in itself to confer a right that individuals can rely on in disputes between private parties

Why this is the answer

Jurisdiction: EU law. The Court held that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion in Article 21 is mandatory and can be relied on against private employers, so conflicting national law must be disapplied.

Answer

D · Is sufficient in itself to confer a right that individuals can rely on in disputes between private parties

ExamProblems · examproblems.com/courses/introduction-to-law