Skip to content

ACCA Applied Skills · Corporate and Business Law (Global) · Business, political and legal systems

In a common law country, the Supreme Court previously decided that a particular type of exclusion clause is unenforceable. A lower court now hears a case on materially identical facts. What should the lower court do?

The lower court should follow the Supreme Court decision. Under binding precedent, the ratio decidendi of a higher court in the same hierarchy must be applied by lower courts in cases with materially similar facts, so it is not merely persuasive.

  1. AFollow the Supreme Court decision, as it is binding precedentCorrect
  2. BIgnore it, because only legislation is binding
  3. CTreat it as persuasive only and decide freely

Explanation

Under the doctrine of binding precedent (stare decisis), the ratio decidendi of a higher court binds lower courts in later cases with materially similar facts. Treating it as merely persuasive is wrong because it comes from a superior court in the same hierarchy.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Business, political and legal systems shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Business, political and legal systems questions