Introduction to Law: cram pack

An actress agrees to act only for one studio and not for any other during the contract. She leaves to act for a rival. The court is most likely to:

1. AOrder her to perform her contract with the studio
2. BOrder her to pay the rival's profits to the court
3. CGrant an injunction stopping her acting for the rival
4. DRefuse any remedy, as personal services are involved

An act done before a promise was made can still be good consideration if:

1. AThe act was done within one year before the promise and was of some value to the promisor
2. BIt was valuable to the promisor when it was done
3. CIt was requested, payment was understood, and the promise would otherwise be enforceable
4. DThe later promise was made in writing

A driver is in a minor collision, suffers no physical injury, but his chronic fatigue illness becomes permanent. In Page v Smith, he could recover because:

1. AThe defendant intended to injure him
2. BHe was a primary victim and personal injury of some kind was foreseeable
3. CHe had a close tie of love with the other driver
4. DPsychiatric injury is always recoverable after any road accident, however minor

After drinking together for hours, a man agrees to fly with an obviously very drunk pilot, and the plane crashes. In Morris v Murray, the passenger's claim:

1. AFailed, because of illegality
2. BFailed, because he voluntarily accepted the risk
3. CSucceeded, because volenti never applies to passengers
4. DSucceeded, with damages reduced for contributory negligence

In Marbury v Madison (1803), the US Supreme Court established:

1. AThe power of courts to review the constitutionality of legislation
2. BThe power of Congress to overrule decisions of the federal judiciary
3. CThe right to bear arms
4. DThe President's veto power

In R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019), the Supreme Court held that an ouster clause protecting the Tribunal's decisions:

1. AExcluded all review of its decisions
2. BDid not exclude judicial review of its errors of law
3. CApplied only to decisions on national security
4. DWas invalid because it was in secondary legislation

D drinks heavily to gain courage before killing V, as planned. Following A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher, D:

1. ACan only be guilty of manslaughter
2. BHas a defence of involuntary intoxication
3. CCan rely on intoxication because murder is a specific intent offence
4. DCannot rely on intoxication, because the intent to kill was formed before drinking

In R v Sullivan (1984), D injured a friend during an epileptic seizure. The House of Lords held:

1. AD was guilty because he knew he was epileptic
2. BEpilepsy was a "disease of the mind" in law, so the defence was insanity
3. CEpilepsy was an external factor, so the defence was automatism
4. DOnly psychiatric illnesses can be diseases of the mind

Van Gend en Loos (1963) established that:

1. ADirectives have horizontal direct effect
2. BTreaty provisions can have direct effect and create rights for individuals in national courts
3. CTreaty provisions bind only the member states and never create rights for individuals before national courts
4. DMember states can leave the EU at will

In Faccini Dori (1994), a consumer tried to rely on an untransposed consumer directive against a private company. The Court held that:

1. ADirectives cannot of themselves impose obligations on individuals, so she could not rely on it
2. BThe company was an emanation of the state
3. CThe directive had horizontal direct effect, because consumers are the weaker contracting parties
4. DThe directive was invalid because it had not been transposed