LNAT (Legal Aptitude II) 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A teenager aged 15 signs a contract to buy a luxury sports car. The seller wishes to enforce it. What is the most likely legal position in a common law jurisdiction?
- The contract is fully binding because the teenager signed voluntarily.
- The contract is void because minors lack contractual capacity.
- The contract is voidable at the minor's option and unenforceable by the seller. (Correct answer)
- The contract is enforceable only if a parent co-signed.
Correct answer: The contract is voidable at the minor's option and unenforceable by the seller.
At common law, contracts for non-necessaries made by minors are voidable at the minor's election, and the adult party cannot enforce them.
Question 2: An argument concludes: 'We should lower the voting age to 16 because 16-year-olds can drive and pay taxes.' What type of reasoning is being used?
- Argument by analogy (Correct answer)
- Deductive reasoning
- Statistical induction
- Appeal to tradition
Correct answer: Argument by analogy
The argument draws a parallel between civic responsibilities already assigned to 16-year-olds and the responsibility of voting.
Question 3: Which of the following best distinguishes civil law from criminal law?
- Civil law is enforced by the police; criminal law is enforced by private parties.
- In civil law the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities; in criminal law it is beyond reasonable doubt. (Correct answer)
- Civil law can result in imprisonment; criminal law cannot.
- Criminal law requires the victim to bring the case; civil law does not.
Correct answer: In civil law the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities; in criminal law it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The key distinction is the standard of proof: civil cases require proof on the balance of probabilities, while criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Question 4: A passage argues that social media companies should be liable for all defamatory content posted by users. Which counter-argument directly undermines the main premise?
- Social media is popular among young people.
- Imposing such liability would make platforms unviable, stifling free speech. (Correct answer)
- Defamation law is outdated and should be abolished.
- Most social media users never post defamatory content.
Correct answer: Imposing such liability would make platforms unviable, stifling free speech.
This counter-argument attacks the policy rationale by showing that strict liability would have serious negative consequences, undermining the case for the rule.
Question 5: Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, a defendant is strictly liable when they:
- Intentionally harm a neighbour's land.
- Bring something onto land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it does escape. (Correct answer)
- Negligently allow a fire to spread to adjoining property.
- Trespass onto another's land without permission.
Correct answer: Bring something onto land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it does escape.
Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who brings and keeps a dangerous thing on land is strictly liable if it escapes and causes damage, without need to prove negligence.
Question 6: A written law states that 'dogs must be kept on a lead in this park.' A blind person enters with a guide dog off-lead. A purposive interpretation would most likely conclude:
- The blind person is guilty because the statute is clear.
- The statute applies but the person has a defence of necessity.
- Guide dogs are implicitly exempt because the law's purpose is public safety, not restricting assistance animals. (Correct answer)
- The local authority must amend the statute before enforcement.
Correct answer: Guide dogs are implicitly exempt because the law's purpose is public safety, not restricting assistance animals.
A purposive approach looks at the law's aim—preventing dangerous dog behaviour—and would not apply the rule to a trained guide dog serving a disability need.
Question 7: An advocate argues: 'Our client cannot be convicted because many other people commit similar offences and are not prosecuted.' This argument is:
- Valid, because selective prosecution is unconstitutional.
- Irrelevant to guilt or innocence, since others' unprosecuted conduct does not negate the defendant's act. (Correct answer)
- Valid, because it shows the law is unenforceable.
- Relevant only if the defendant was specifically targeted for discriminatory reasons.
Correct answer: Irrelevant to guilt or innocence, since others' unprosecuted conduct does not negate the defendant's act.
The fact that others commit similar offences and escape prosecution does not affect whether this defendant committed the alleged act.
LNAT (Legal Aptitude II) 4
A teenager aged 15 signs a contract to buy a luxury sports car.
The seller wishes to enforce it.
What is the most likely legal position in a common law jurisdiction?