Common mistakes Not recognizing that Devi was buying a computer for his business and therefore was not a consumer. The whole issue was then addressed with the wrong legislation (CRA instead of UCTA). In addition, many wasted time talking about possible false statements by seller Erich, if the main claim was for breach of contract and not for misrepresentation. As far as Whinger is the salary reduction supported by consideration? In the past, the CA had noted that Williams v. Roffey did not apply to “reducing” changes (Re Selectmove), but strong responses will be aware of the change in MWB v. Rock (2016). Does Whinger get enough practical advantage to be taken into account by retaining the benefit of continuous employment? If so, check whether the reduction was nevertheless achieved by economic coercion. Discuss the demands of the doctrine: Did the Nice Girls threaten to break Whinger`s contract? If so, it acted under duress, given the relevance of: protest, the existence of alternatives, etc., as discussed in Pao On, Baron of the Atlantic. Legal cases, reports and other references that auditors would expect from you An analysis of possible misrepresentations in relation to each of the three actors is necessary and it is best to divide the answer into three sections. A good answer to that question would be.
give equal weight to all parties and clear examples of case law in support of the principles set out above. Legal cases, reports and other references that auditors would expect from you The contract is for the sale of goods, so consider SGA 1979 SS 14 (2) (satisfactory quality) in terms of overheating and ss (description) and 14 (3) in terms of compatibility with the specified software (also possible liability for breach of express insurance). The identifiable losses that D suffered include bodily injury (burned arm), property damage (coat), the amount paid for an unnecessary computer, and certain business losses. Only then do we look at the effect of the various clauses. Wrong answers to this question. described the error only in all its forms with little explanation or use of the relevant case law. Legal cases, reports and other references that auditors would expect you to use since A and B are sisters, consider whether the intention is to establish legal relationships. Balfour, Jones vs. Padavatti, etc.
Refuted here, because there is a reference to a Merritt “business base”. Problem 2: Richard paid George $5,000 a month in rent for the use of his premises. The rent is expected to increase by 10% at the end of the six months. However, Richard admits in June that he would not be able to pay the surcharge due to ambiguities in his business, George allowed him to unsubscribe. However, in June 2017, George called and demanded an additional 4300 from Richard. He did not agree to confirm the oral contracts and said the specifications of the leasing document would apply. This can be considered a breach of contract. Would you like to exchange your academic exam documents and grades with my university? General remarks The question concerns express and implied clauses and exclusion or limitation clauses. Students should note at the beginning that this is a B2B contract and therefore UCTA 1977 and not ARC 2015 will apply. Notes are given for good technique in the answer to the question, especially those who try to identify what liability would arise without the relevant clauses before considering the effect of the different clauses. Many have jumped straight into the way exclusions work without considering possible claims. Buy Pepe Consider the type of presentation.
The statement about his condition was true when it was said, but became false before the contract was concluded, so consider With v O`Flanaghan and Aprillia v Spice Girls. Consider the availability of withdrawal and damage. Again, the Misrepresentation Act, s(1) Damages offers benefits, as above. In conclusion, I would like to say that many responses provide a reasonable analysis of a problematic issue, but do not support their assertions with the relevant case law. Wrong answers to this question. I have only described concepts of consideration and perhaps mentioned some of the key cases like Williams vs Roffey, but without applying them in the right context. A good answer to that question would be. analyze the problem described above in logical and clear steps supported by case law and relevant legislation. Good students will notice the importance of section 3 as a limitation as opposed to an exception clause and also the evolutionary approach of allowing commercial entrepreneurs with equal bargaining power to have more important legal affairs, reports, and other references that auditors would expect you to use, regardless of which sections were answered, it was important to find a balance between description and criticism.
(a) Consider in particular davis v. Fareham and Suez. b) Think of Errington and Daulia. The best answers will realize that this is an exaggeration, since the Luxor v Cooper rule depends on the implication of a term. (c) The two different tax bases should be clearly distinguished. Ruxley is the obvious starting point that clearly contradicts the statement. (d) The so-called “blocking” of certain services, according to which damages are an appropriate remedy, could be discussed by referring to cases of “unique” goods such as Behnke v. Bede and the Bronx Engineering case, as well as the “standard approach” to land sales contracts. Next, analyze the communication: February 1: B to A with the statement “I want about £100,000 for this” is an invitation to cover (ITT) Gibson v MCC. February 1 evening: A to B probably sends an offer to purchase, although it is formulated as an acceptance. The law deals with the substance and not the Hyde v Wrench form of communication. Discuss the status of email communication.
February 3: Hyde v Wrench switch offerS A to B. Consider that the effect of the counteroffer destroys the previous offer. B`s “silence” after February 3 is not proof of acceptance. Consider Felthouse v Bindley and Rust v Abbey Life. No contract is concluded. Indicate whether a contract is enforceable in any of the following other circumstances: legal cases, reports, and other references that auditors would expect you to use a) Consider previous considerations Eastwood vs Kenyon, Lampleigh vs Braithwaite, etc.b) Consider the basic definition of currie vs Misa into consideration, which in turn is either an advantage to the promise, or a disadvantage for the promisor. Recognizes. Here, Ursula`s effort is undoubtedly a disadvantage for her, but less obviously an advantage for Thierry. Consider the fact that Victor is a third party. (c) The obligation to refrain from making an allegation that the prosecutor wrongly considers to be well-founded but in good faith is a good consideration, Cook v.
Wright. Abandoning a claim that is known to be bad does not reveal good consideration, Wade v. Simeon. Only very strong answers will appreciate this distinction and apply it here. d) Consider whether the promise to fulfill a duty already due under the general law – a public duty – is a good consideration for glasbrook and football affairs: Harris and now Leeds United against the West Yorkshire Police Chief. e) Check whether the promise to fulfil an already existing contractual obligation to a third party (the university) is a good consideration, Stilk v Myrick. There is also another important issue regarding the remedy (damages) for the parties. At common law, the principle of “the loss is where it falls” states that the price paid is non-refundable and that the fees payable are no longer paid. This creates unfair situations for the parties. Although the further development of fibrosis is considered a “total failure of consideration”, the situation is still not satisfactory.
The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 – provided for a formal law on which the parties could rely in a frustrated contractual situation. In particular, the law reformed claims for compensation, i.e. s(1) – all amounts paid or payable to a party in performance of the contract before the frustrating event could be recovered. Therefore, under the law, a payment made prior to the frustrated incident may be claimed, as in Taylor v. Caldwell or Krell v. Henry – the deposit of one party can be claimed from the other. Considering that clause s(2) provides for reimbursable provisions to compensate for the costs incurred by the other parties, as in gamerco SA v. ICM. Also in § 3, the party who has obtained a practical advantage may be claimed, as in BP v.
Hunt – the court would assess the practical benefit that Hunt obtained for its share of oil refining and compensate BP for losses in order to avoid an unjust enrichment situation. Third, the example of Uber v Aslam can be cited. The Uber drivers` appeal was not before the Labor Court. In this case, the problem of non-acceptance of the pre-reserved product can be taken into account. The problem is that Tom didn`t sign a purchase clause with Richard. According to the Product Liability and Safety Act, it is essential to conclude a contract with a buyer when confirming the purchase. Since this has not been done; The court is more likely to dismiss Richard`s appeal if it appeals to the court.4 Another common mistake, as in previous years, is to write a prepared answer to essay questions – the right area of law is usually identified, but the specific question that is asked is not treated properly. Students are usually asked to comment on a statement, and too often they simply provide a factual summary of the law in this area, as if the question had been, “Write down everything you know about frustration/privacy/illegality,” etc.