SBAQ: Sources & Development of Law Flashcards
A High Court judge is telling colleagues about a case they were recently involved with. The Claimant had issued a claim based upon a [fictitious] House of Lords precedent from 1990 which stated obiter dicta that a person could be liable for damages if they failed to pay for goods in a timely manner. The Defendant defended based on a [fictitious] statute from 1664 which stated that the only debt from the sale of goods can be the price of those goods. This statute had not since been repealed or amended. The Defendant was successful in defending the claim by applying the very old statute in favour of the newer case law. The Claimant sought permission to appeal which was refused. The High Court judge believes this to be correct.
Yes, because the case was decided relating to constitutional principle and was decided based on Parliamentary Sovereignty.
The fundamental question for the trial judge was whether to rely upon the old statute or the newer case law. Despite being old, the statute was made by Parliament and Parliament is sovereign. Obiter dicta comments from the judiciary would not be favoured over statute.
A law professor must explain how the role of the King impacts legally upon the constitution. Part of their lecture is as follows:
“The King holds all legal authority over the constitution, except for any matters removed from him by the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights or other laws. The King is head of Parliament, and our constitution is a democratic monarchy. The King can legally dismiss the Prime Minister, prorogue Parliament, suggest new taxes and block a statute by refusing to give Royal Assent to a bill. The King has delegated these prerogative powers to the executive and as a matter of constitutional convention only operates any under the advice of them. In this way, democratically elected Members of Parliament who sit within the executive can operate the law to ensure sound decision making within the will of the electorate.’
Yes, because the King remains legal head of state. Legally he can do anything he wants to, so long as any positive law has not removed the power. Practically speaking, the King does not act without the advice of members of the executive, to preserve democracy. Because in a democratic monarchy, the King does not operate his legal powers without advice from the executive to preserve the balance between monarchy and the voting public
A specialist car mechanic (mechanic) is claiming for unpaid money owed for his services on a motor enthusiast’s (motorist) vintage rally car which he completed in full. The motorist paid 80% of the price of the services up front to get the work completed in time for a competition. He has not paid the balance.
The mechanic told the motorist of a clever trick to do with mixing petrol to make the car go faster. He told him not to use the trick because it was his invention and the motorist promised he would not. The motorist used the information to take the car to a vintage car rally and won a huge cash prize. He then patented the petrol mix and started selling the idea to other motorists. The mechanic also wants to claim for an account of profit for this.
Yes, because the courts of equity and common law were combined 150 years ago. The mechanic can claim both equitable and contractual remedies at once.
Is it possible to claim in common law and equity at the same time?
Yes
What are the 5 stages before a Bill can come into place?
First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading
How is a Bill passed
It first goes through the 5 stages in the House of Commons, then the same 5 stages in the House of Lords, where amendments can be made
