A Level Law: The Law in Action — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: The Law in Action revision notes

---

Section A

1. Distinguish between a condition and a warranty in a contract, and explain the consequence of breaching each. [4]

2. State the four implied terms the Consumer Rights Act 2015 places into a contract to supply goods, and the section number for each. [4]

Section B

3. Explain the elements a claimant must prove to succeed in a claim in negligence, and outline one defence available to the defendant. [8]

4. Explain the difference between actus reus and mens rea, and describe two ways in which a defendant may be held liable for an omission. [7]

5. A shop assistant genuinely, but mistakenly, believes a customer has already paid for an item and lets them leave with it. Later, the assistant realises the mistake but says nothing.

(a) Explain why the assistant is not liable for theft at the moment the customer leaves the shop. [3] (b) Explain whether the law of theft could apply once the assistant realises the mistake and does nothing. [4]

6. Explain two of the four categories of sentence available under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [6]

7. Explain what a claimant must now prove to succeed in a defamation claim under the Defamation Act 2013, and describe one available defence. [6]

8. Distinguish between the duty owed to a lawful visitor and the duty owed to a trespasser under English law, naming the relevant Act in each case. [6]

---

Answers

1. A condition is a major term going to the root of the contract; breach entitles the innocent party to treat the contract as discharged and claim damages [1] [1]. A warranty is a minor term; breach only gives a right to claim damages, and the contract continues [1] [1].

2. Satisfactory quality — section 9 [1]. Fitness for a particular purpose made known to the seller — section 10 [1]. Matching description — section 11 [1]. (Any four correctly paired sections/terms; also accept a fourth from the remedy provisions — short-term right to reject, s 20 — if the candidate has named three implied terms already.) [1]

3. The claimant must show a duty of care was owed (harm reasonably foreseeable, sufficient proximity, and it being fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty) [1] [1]; that the defendant breached that duty, judged against the standard of the reasonable person, weighing the foreseeable risk against the cost and practicality of taking precautions [1] [1]; and that the breach caused damage, both factually (the “but for” test) and legally (the breach was an operating and substantial cause) [1] [1]. One defence: volenti non fit injuria — a complete defence where the claimant freely and knowingly consented to the specific risk [1]; or contributory negligence — the claimant’s own fault contributed to their harm, reducing (not defeating) the damages awarded under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 [1].

4. Actus reus is the guilty act (the conduct, circumstances and/or consequences that make up the offence); mens rea is the guilty mind (the mental element, such as intention or recklessness) [1] [1]. Generally both must coincide for liability. Omissions liability arises only in defined situations: e.g. where a duty arises from a contract (an employee whose job it is to act) [1] [1], or where the defendant’s own prior act created a dangerous situation and they failed to take reasonable steps to counter it once aware of the danger [1] [1]. (Also accept: a duty arising from a relationship, such as parent and child.)

5. (a) Theft requires dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention permanently to deprive at the time of the appropriation [1]. Because the assistant genuinely believed the item had been paid for, there is no dishonesty and no relevant mens rea at the moment of appropriation — an honest, even if mistaken, belief negates the mental element required [1] [1]. (b) Appropriation can be a continuing act, and once the assistant realises the mistake, a fresh appropriation with the necessary mens rea can occur if they then act (or, arguably, deliberately fail to act to correct it) dishonestly with intent to permanently deprive [1] [1]. A strong answer notes this is a more marginal application and explains why the facts might or might not satisfy dishonesty and intention at that later point, rather than simply asserting liability [1] [1].

6. Any two, 3 marks each: custodial sentences — imprisonment, reserved for offences serious enough that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified [1] [1] [1]. Community orders — a sentence served in the community, which can combine requirements such as unpaid work, curfew or supervision [1] [1] [1]. Fines — a financial penalty, the most commonly used sentence, set with regard to the offender’s means [1] [1] [1]. Discharges — conditional (no further action unless another offence is committed within a set period) or absolute (no penalty at all, reflecting a technical or trivial breach) [1] [1] [1].

7. The claimant must now prove the statement caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation, under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 [1] [1]. One defence: truth (s 2) — the defendant proves the substance of the statement is substantially true [1] [1]; or honest opinion (s 3) — the statement was opinion, based on facts that existed and that an honest person could have held, and indicated (in general or specific terms) the basis of the opinion [1] [1]; or public interest (s 4) — the defendant reasonably believed publishing the statement was in the public interest [1] [1].

8. A lawful visitor is owed the common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 — to take such care as is reasonable to keep them reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are permitted to be on the premises [1] [1] [1]. A trespasser (non-visitor) is owed a narrower duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, arising only where the occupier knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, a danger exists and that the trespasser may come into its vicinity [1] [1] [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Saying breach of a warranty lets the innocent party treat the contract as discharged — only a condition does.
• Quoting the wrong CRA 2015 section number for an implied term.
• Stating the “but for” test alone as if it proves causation, without addressing legal causation.
• Treating a genuine, honest mistake as irrelevant to theft rather than as negating the mens rea.
• Naming a sentence type under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 without explaining what it involves.
• Forgetting that the Defamation Act 2013 requires serious harm, not merely some harm.
• Applying the 1957 Act’s duty to a trespasser, or the 1984 Act’s duty to a lawful visitor.