Introduction to Law: cram pack

A creditor agrees to take £600 in full settlement of a £1,000 debt that is due, then sues for the other £400. Under Pinnel's Case and Foakes v Beer, the creditor:

1. ACannot recover anything more
2. BMust give back the £600 first
3. CCan recover only if the agreement was oral
4. DCan usually recover the £400

Which statement about the parol evidence rule is correct?

1. AOral contracts are always invalid
2. BWritten contracts can never be interpreted
3. CCourts must accept any later oral statement as overriding the express written terms of the contract
4. DEvidence outside a written contract is generally not admitted to add to or vary its terms

In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, why did the claim fail?

1. AThe patient would have died even with proper treatment
2. BThe doctor met the standard of care
3. CThe claim was made too late
4. DThe hospital owed no duty of care to a patient it had not admitted

A prisoner known to be a suicide risk kills himself in a police cell after officers leave the door hatch open. In Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the House of Lords held:

1. AHis deliberate act did not break the chain, because it was the very thing the duty aimed to prevent
2. BThe claim failed because of illegality
3. CThe police were not liable, because a sane adult's suicide is always a voluntary act breaking the chain
4. DHis deliberate act broke the chain of causation

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

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

Under Osman v UK, a state breaches its positive obligation under Article 2 to protect a person from a third party if the authorities:

1. ADid not provide round-the-clock police protection for every person who had reported any threat against them
2. BFailed to convict the person who later killed the victim
3. CKnew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life, and failed to take reasonable measures
4. DFailed to prevent any crime in their area

D attacks someone while sleepwalking. Following R v Burgess, the correct defence is:

1. AInvoluntary intoxication, because D was not aware
2. BSelf-defence, because D was dreaming of an attack
3. CInsanity, because sleepwalking was caused by an internal factor
4. DNon-insane automatism, because sleep is natural

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

Francovich (1991) established that:

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

In Rottmann (2010), Germany withdrew a naturalisation obtained by deception, leaving the person stateless. The Court held:

1. ANationality is purely national, so EU law is irrelevant
2. BThe person automatically regained his previous nationality
3. CThe withdrawal fell within the scope of EU law and had to respect the principle of proportionality
4. DMember states can never withdraw nationality once granted if doing so would make the person stateless