Chapter 15 Multiple Choice Questions

. Regarding product liability under the common law, which one of the following statements is true?

The common law rules relating to product liability derive from Lord Atkin's 'neighbour' test in Donoghue v Stevenson.

Where product liability at common law is established, the claimant cannot claim for the damage sustained to the product itself.

The common law rules will not apply to purely gratuitous transfers of goods.

Liability under the common law can be imposed on a seller even if the seller specifically recommends that the buyer examine the goods.

Where the loss sustained is attributable to a defect in the product and the claimant's misuse of the product, it is unlikely that liability will be imposed.

. Regarding the relationship between the common law and statutory rules relating to product liability, which one of the following statements is true?

The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 exist alongside the common law rules.

A claimant cannot bring a claim under both the common law and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

A claimant can only commence proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 if a claim under the common law has failed.

If a contractual relationship exists between the claimant and defendant, then the claimant cannot commence proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and must instead base his claim on the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

. Which ONE of the following classes of person cannot be liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Persons who hold themselves out as the product's producer.

The person who manufactured a component part.

The person who manufactured the final product.

A producer who exports products into the European Union.

If the product is not one that is manufactured, the person who won or abstracted it.

. The term 'wrongful interference with goods' is a collective term for which two torts?

Trespass to goods and unlawful interference with trade.

Conversion and passing off.

Unlawful interference with trade and passing off.

Trespass to goods and conversion.

Inducing breach of contract and conspiracy.

. Which one of the following is NOT an example of interference under the tort of trespass to goods?

Moving goods that are in the lawful possession of another person.

Running a key down the side of a car, leaving a deep scratch in the paintwork.

Killing an animal.

The defendant, who owns the goods, takes them from another person who has lawful possession of them.

The defendant locks a room in which the claimant's goods are located, and refuses to open the door to allow the claimant to obtain his goods.

. What is the tort of conversion?

An intentional act of dealing with goods in a manner that is inconsistent with another's possession, or in a way that serves to deny another's right to immediate possession.

Interfering with the trade or business of another person by engaging in unlawful acts.

Intentionally causing a person who is a party to a contract to breach that contract.

Any direct physical interference with goods that are in the possession of another person, without the consent of the person in possession, unless there is a lawful justification for the interference.

. In relation to determining the liability of an occupier of premises, why is it important to distinguish between lawful and non-lawful visitors?

The duty of care owed to lawful visitors is different to that owed to non-lawful visitors.

The duty of care owed to lawful visitors is statutory, whereas the duty of care owed to non-lawful visitors only arises under the common law.

Lawful visitors are subject to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, whereas non-lawful visitors are subject the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.

An occupier of premises only owes a duty of care to lawful visitors - no duty of care is owed to non-lawful visitors.

. In relation to the distinction between a private nuisance and a public nuisance, which one of the following statements is untrue?

To establish that a private nuisance has occurred, the claimant will need to establish an interest in the land affected. No such requirement exists in relation to public nuisances.

The defence of prescription is available in cases of private nuisance, but not in cases involving a public nuisance.

A private nuisance constitutes a tort only, whereas a public nuisance can amount to both a tort and a crime.

Damages for loss of enjoyment can be recovered in the case of a private nuisance, but cannot be recovered in the case of a public nuisance.

. In relation to private nuisance, which one of the following statements is untrue?

If damage is attributable to the claimant's sensitivity to a greater degree than the defendant's conduct, then no nuisance will be committed.

The interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land must be substantial.

The motive behind a person's act of interference is irrelevant.

Isolated or infrequent acts of interference are unlikely to amount to a private nuisance.

The damage sustained must be reasonably foreseeable.

The more persistence a interference, the more likely it is to constitute an actionable private nuisance.

. In relation to public nuisance, which one of the following statements is untrue?

The remedy of abatement is not available.

The claimant must prove the existence of widespread harm.

The defence of prescription is not available.

Damages are recoverable for damage to property, personal injury and/or economic loss.

A public nuisance is both a crime and a tort.

The claimant must establish that he suffered the same harm as the class of persons concerned.

. Regarding the difference between libel and slander, which one of the following statements is untrue?

Libel is actionable even if the libel has not caused any damage.

Slander is only ever actionable if the slander causes damage.

Libel can amount to a crime.

Libel refers to a defamatory statement published in a permanent form, whereas slander refers to a defamatory statement published in a non-permanent form.

Quiz Content