Introduction to Law: cram pack

Sailors are promised extra wages for sailing a ship home after two crew members desert, but they do no more than their contract already required. In Stilk v Myrick the promise was:

1. AEnforceable because the captain agreed freely
2. BEnforceable as a practical benefit
3. CUnenforceable for lack of consideration
4. DUnenforceable because it was made at sea

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

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

A young man dives into a shallow lake in a public park despite warning signs and is paralysed. In Tomlinson v Congleton BC, the council was:

1. ANot liable, because the risk was obvious and voluntarily taken
2. BLiable, because it did not destroy the beach
3. CLiable, because the signs were ignored by many
4. DLiable for half of the damage

The "eggshell skull" rule means that:

1. AThe defendant must take the victim as found, including unusual vulnerabilities
2. BFragile victims cannot recover damages
3. CHead injuries are compensated at a fixed rate
4. DOnly foreseeable claimants can sue

In Golder v UK, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 6 includes:

1. AA right of access to a court
2. BA right to a jury trial
3. CA right to free legal aid in all cases
4. DA right to appeal to Strasbourg

A woman with a terminal illness asks for a guarantee that her husband will not be prosecuted for helping her die. In Pretty v UK, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 2:

1. ADoes not include a right to die
2. BRequires states to allow assisted suicide
3. CWas not engaged by her case at all
4. DRequires an immunity for her husband

D, carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note, walks towards a post office to rob it but is arrested outside before entering. Under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, D is most likely guilty of:

1. ANothing as attempted robbery yet, because D has not gone beyond preparation
2. BRobbery, because the intention was proved
3. CBurglary, because D intended to enter the building
4. DAttempted robbery, because D was carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note

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

In Baumbast (2002), a German national in the UK lacked sickness insurance covering emergency treatment. The Court held that:

1. AResidence rights depend entirely on national immigration law once a person has stopped working in the host member state
2. BArticle 21 TFEU gives a directly effective right of residence, and limits on it must be applied proportionately
3. COnly EU institutions can enforce citizenship rights
4. DHe had no right to reside because he was no longer working