The law should apply equally to all people including those in the government or who hold positions of power.This principle is known as:

a.Legal positivism

b.The Rule of Law

c.The Doctrine of Reception

d.The Separation of Powers

The term 'separation of powers' refers to the division of powers between:

a.The House of Representatives and the Senate

b.State governments and the Commonwealth government

c.The Governor, the Queen and the Prime Minister

d.The parliament, the executive, and the judiciary

Ravi and Sarita are parents of eight-year old Minnie, who wants to be a ballet dancer.Minnie needs to go to ballet practice 3 times a week, so Sarita and Ravi draw up a roster for taking her to practice.One day Sarita gets stuck at work and cannot take Minnie to her ballet class, even though it was her rostered day.Which of the following statements is correct?

a.There is a binding contract between Ravi and Sarita, which Sarita has breached

b.Domestic agreements can never be legally binding

c.ApplyingBalfour v Balfour, this is a domestic agreement and it is not meant to create legal relations

d.None of the above

Emily was attending a picnic in the MtTamborineReserve with her friends.After consuming a few drinks, she decided to go for a walk.She wandered away from the walking track, past a sign that read "No public access", and climbed over afence next to the edge of a cliff.Even though theedge of the cliff was clearly visible to any person, Emilywasn'tpayingattentionto where she waswalking,fell off the edge of the cliff and sustained a serious spinal injury as a result.Emily wishes to sue the MtTamborineCouncil as the Council is responsible for maintaining the Reserve.Will Emily be successful?

a.Yes, Emily will be successful because the Council is the occupier of the reserve,and it has breached the duty of care owed to Emily.

b.Yes, Emily will be successful because the Council breached its duty of care by failing to erect a higher fence.

c.No,Emily will not be successful because the Council does not owe a duty of care to warn of an obvious risk of harm.

d.Both (a) and (b) are correct.

What was the name of the Chief Justice sitting on the High Court for the decision ofCommercial Bank of Australia v Amadio?

a.French C.J.

b.Dawson C.J.

c.Gibbs C.J.

d.Mason C.J.

The District Court of Queensland is faced with a case that has similar facts to a case previously decided by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.The decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory would be regarded as:

a.A persuasive precedent

b.Obiter dicta

c.No precedent at all because the decision is made by a Territory court, not a State court

d.A binding precedent

On 15 June 2018, Electro Pty Ltd mailed a written offer to Ravi for the sale of an office building.The offer included an express term that the offer would expire on 30 June 2018 if the acceptance was not delivered into the hands of the offeror by the expiration date.On 30 June 2018 at 8.00am, Ravi sent a written acceptance to Electro Pty Ltd via Ravi's personal courier.However, the courier was not able to deliver the acceptance until 1 July 2018.On 2 July 2018, Electro Pty Ltd contacted Ravi, informing him that the acceptance had been delivered one day late.As a result, Electro Pty Ltd refused to honour the acceptance.Which of the following is the most correct statement?

a.There is no contract between Electro Pty Ltd and Ravi

b.There is a contract between Electro Pty Ltd and Ravi.The moment that Ravi gave the acceptance to the courier, a contract with Electro Pty Ltd was formed because acceptances are valid as soon as they are sent

c.There is no contract between Electro Pty Ltd and Ravi.However, if Ravi would have mailed the acceptance on 30 June 2018, a contract would have been created

d.There is a contract between Electro Pty Ltd and Ravi.The fact that the acceptance arrived only one day late is of no significance

The principle that an offer may be made to a group of people, or to the world at large was established in which common law case?

a.Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

b.Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

c.Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio

d.Waltons Stores v Maher

Elvis and Priscilla entered the Graceland Hotel in Brisbane. After enquiring as to the availability of a room they paid cash for the penthouse suite for three nights. They had not been to Brisbane previously and did not receive any other information about the conditions of their stay at the time. That night, Priscilla's diamond necklace was stolen from their room. The next morning Elvis received a notice from the Hotel excluding all liability for lost or stolen items. Can the notice legally exclude the Hotel from liability in this situation?

a.The exclusion clause is not binding because of the principles established inPresley v Wagner

b.The exclusion clause is binding as notice of the exclusion clause may be given at any time during Elvis and Priscilla's stay at the Graceland Hotel

c.The exclusion clause is not binding because notice of the exclusion clause was received after the contract was formed

d.The exclusion clause is not binding because it breaches the 'Four Corners Rule'

Matt is considering buying a Pacific Fair (on the Gold Coast) based retail shop from Garments Express Pty Ltd. (GEPL). As a means of assessing the value of the business, Matt asks GEPL for the last year's turnover figures for the Pacific Fair outlet. Instead of providing the turnover figures for the Pacific Fair outlet, GEPL's accountant deliberately provided the turnover figures for the Robina outlet knowing that it would be more appealing to Matt because Robinahas a much higher turnover than the Pacific Fair outlet. By relying on the wrong turnover figures provided by GEPL Matt paid a lot more for the Pacific Fair outlet than what it was worth. In this circumstance Matt would be able to argue that the contract should be set aside under the common law principle of:

a.Negligent misrepresentation

b.Fraudulent misrepresentation

c.Innocent misrepresentation

d.Undue influence