Explain how the doctrine of precedent would operate in the following situations:

1. The Court of Appeal is hearing an appeal. There are two previous Court of Appeal decisions on the

issue and they were both decided on the same day - but their decisions conflict. How should the

Court proceed?

2. An either-way offence is being heard summarily in a magistrates' court. There is a decision of the

Crown Court that involves similar facts. Are the magistrates' obliged to follow the decision of the

Crown Court?

3. The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal concerning a point of law involving devolution. There is a

previous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Is the Supreme Court bound by the

decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

4. The High Court is hearing a case. There is a Court of Appeal decision on the issue, but it is arguable

that this decision is inconsistent with a decision of the European Court of Justice. Must the High

Court follow the decision of the Court of Appeal?

5. The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division is hearing an appeal. There is a previous decision

of the Divisional Court on the issue. Does the current Divisional Court have to follow the decision of

the previous Divisional Court?

Discuss the following situations, focusing on whether or not the parties involved have the capacity to

contract and, if so, to what extent is any resulting contract binding:

1. Lukas is 13 years old. He enters into a contract with Leah (an adult) to purchase of a guitar. Leah

then decides that she does not wish to sell the guitar and alleges that no valid contract exists as

Lukas is too young to be able to enter into a legally binding contract. Is Leah correct? Would your

answer differ if Lukas changed his mind and did not wish to purchase the guitar, but Leah wished

to enforce the agreement?

2. Ross is mentally disabled. He enters his local BMW showroom and enters into an agreement to

purchase a new M3 coup for 50,000. Ross later regrets entering into the agreement and argues

that, due to his mental disability, the agreement is not binding. Is he correct?

3. Louise decides to leave school at the age of 16, once she hears that a friend is looking for an

apprentice for his carpentry firm. Louise enters into a contract that states that she shall be an

apprentice of the firm. A week before she is due to start work, she changes her mind and decides

to complete her A Levels. Does the carpenter have a cause of action against Louise?

4. Georgie enters into a contract to rent a small flat when she is 17 years and 10 months old. The

contract provides that her tenancy shall last a minimum of 12 months, after which time she can

cancel the agreement by giving one months notice. Eight months later, she cancels the agreement,

arguing that as she made the contract when she was a minor, it is not binding on her. Can Georgie

cancel the contract?

5. Ceri is walking home one Saturday night after spending an evening in the pub with her friends. She

has drunk two bottles of wine and is clearly drunk. She walks into a local 24-hour supermarket and

buys three mobile phones, four jackets and three bottles of Mot & Chandon champagne at a total

cost of 600. The next day she takes the purchases back to the supermarket and argues that, as

she was drunk, no contract exists and she should be entitled to her money back. Is she entitled to

recover the 600?