Introduction to Law: cram pack

Promissory estoppel can prevent a party from:

1. AMaking any new promises
2. BSuing for any breach at all, including breaches entirely unrelated to the promise that it made
3. CGoing back on a promise not to enforce strict legal rights, when the other relied on it
4. DEntering into future contracts

A council invites tenders by a deadline. A club submits on time, but the council wrongly treats it as late and ignores it. In Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC, the Court of Appeal held:

1. AThere was no obligation of any kind, as an invitation to tender is only an invitation to treat
2. BThe club could only claim in tort for negligence
3. CThe council was obliged to accept the club's tender
4. DThe council breached an implied contract to consider conforming tenders

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

Police officers arresting a suspect in a busy street knock over an elderly pedestrian. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the Supreme Court held:

1. ANo duty was owed, as the Caparo test was not met for police operations
2. BA duty was owed, since the police caused harm by a positive act
3. CA duty arose only because she was a victim of crime
4. DNo duty was owed, because the police are immune

In Bellinger v Bellinger, the House of Lords could not read the marriage law to recognise a trans woman's marriage to a man, so it:

1. AReferred the case to Strasbourg
2. BMade a declaration of incompatibility
3. CStruck down the relevant provision
4. DRead the statute compatibly under section 3

In Miller II (2019), the UK Supreme Court found the prorogation of Parliament unlawful because:

1. AThe Queen refused to approve it
2. BIt frustrated Parliament's constitutional functions without reasonable justification
3. CIt was decided by a referendum
4. DIt violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR by interfering with the right to free elections

D buys a substance believing it is heroin and intends to sell it on. In fact it is harmless powder. Following R v Shivpuri, D is:

1. ANot guilty, because the substance was harmless
2. BGuilty of the full offence of dealing drugs
3. CGuilty of attempt, as impossibility is no defence under the 1981 Act
4. DNot guilty, because attempting the impossible is no offence under the 1981 Act

Under the loss of control defence (Coroners and Justice Act 2009), the defence is NOT available if:

1. AThe victim was a family member
2. BThe defendant acted in a considered desire for revenge
3. CThe defendant had been drinking that day
4. DThe loss of control was not sudden

What is the consequence under Article 101(2) TFEU of an agreement prohibited by Article 101(1) and not exempted?

1. AIt becomes a state aid
2. BIt remains valid but cannot be enforced against consumers
3. CIt must be renegotiated within a year
4. DIt is automatically void

In Åkerberg Fransson (2013), a Swedish fisherman faced tax penalties and criminal proceedings for VAT fraud. The Court held that the Charter applied because:

1. AThe national measures fell within the scope of EU law on VAT and the EU's financial interests
2. BSweden had incorporated the Charter into its constitution
3. CThe Charter applies to every action of a member state, whether or not it involves EU law in any way
4. DThe fisherman was an EU institution employee