the UK's law coursework
& essay library

Latest submissions

Question: Section A (carries 50% of the marks)– Pre-seen Question
Please note: Students will not be allowed to enter the examination room with any additional notes.

1. Joe, Mike and Tony are the directors of Singing Stars Ltd, a company formed and incorporated in 2010 to carry on a music recording business. Joe, Mike and Tony each own 15% of the company’s shares with the nominal value of £1.00 a share.

The remaining shares are owned by 5 other shareholders who each have an 11% holding. The company has only one class of shares and there is a provision in the company’s articles dis-applying the statutory pre-emption rights contained in section 561 of the Companies Act 2006.

In recent months the other shareholders have grown increasingly dissatisfied with Joe and Mike and their apparent lack of interest in the company. Tony has also become increasingly frustrated with the situation and so is very interested when he is approached by 4 of the other shareholders to ask his opinion about voting Joe and Mike from the board. However Joe and Mike are told of the plot by Luke, the other fifth shareholder, who offers to support them with his 11% of the vote and later to help them secure a number of lucrative contracts, providing there is "something in it for me."

Joe and Mike suggest the following:

(a) That they issue sufficient £1 shares to Luke to raise his stake to 40% to allow them to defeat the resolution for the removal of Joe and Mike from the board.

(b) After this they will pass resolutions to remove Tony from the board and to replace him with Luke.

(c) As an added incentive the shares will be issued to Luke for 60p each to allow for a tidy profit.

(d) Luke has suggested that the company might accept some land which he owns as payment for the shares.

ADVISE Tony on the legality of each of the proposed actions.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Assess the difficulty of requiring a patent, taking into account the requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial application.

Read part of the answer →

Question: ‘Prerogative powers remain an important element of the United Kingdom’s constitution. Should they be subject to greater Parliamentary and judicial scrutiny?’ Discuss.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Case Analysis:
Read Regina v Rogers [2007] UKHL 8, and answer the following questions:

1. What, in your own words, is the ratio decidendi of the case?
2. How did the House of Lords reach its decision in the case?
3. Do you find the House of Lords’ decision to be convincing? Give reasons for your answer.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Illegality in contracts where contracts are unenforceable due to the fact that they are deemed to involve illegality or are contrary to public policy.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Prepare a full written answer to the following problem for presentation to the rest of the tutorial group and peer assessment.

Dragon Retail Ltd imports and sells toys from China.

Dragon contracted to buy 50, 000 at £5 each from China Link Ltd the UK agents. Dragon had £100,000 worth of orders for the toy before Christmas.

Due to production problems in China, China Link said the price had to be increased to £7.50 each to ensure delivery before Christmas. Dragon agreed as they did not want to be unable to fill their orders. In addition, Dragon agreed to Trade Union demands just before Christmas to increase staff wages and holidays to avoid a threatened strike that would have prevented delivery of the Christmas orders and put them in breach of contract with their customers.

Advise Dragon as to whether they can avoid the contracts with their employees and China Link and recover the extra money paid.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Case study - Siddique Spice Ltd (“SS”) regularly create and produce ready-made indian meals for Tesbury’s Supermarkets PLC for sale in their stores. For the last 10 years SS and Tesbury’s have had regular dealings and SS have created and produced between 4 – 8 different dishes per year for SS. Each year, Tesbury’s has given SS an outline menu in January. SS then submits recipes and menus which Tesbury’s consider along with menus from other ready meal producers. Tesbury’s then selects the new meals it wishes to promote and sell and places orders with SS. Orders are normally placed 3 weeks in advance at prices and quantities agreed from time to time. There is no written contract in place although 70% of SS’s business worth £500,000 per year comes from Tesbury’s with whom they have a very close working relationship. SS have also adapted their business practices to fit in with Tesbury’s. Despite the success of SS’s range of ready meals, Tesbury’s have decided not to sell SS’s products anymore.

On 1st October, Tesbury informed SS that they would not be placing any more orders with SS with immediate effect. This will have a devastating effect on SS’s business and SS say Tesbury’s are not entitled to end their longstanding relationship with SS without reasonable notice as they say there is a contract for the production and supply of a reasonable number of meals per year at reasonable prices. SS claim they are entitled to compensation for breach of contract. They also say that the conduct of Tesbury’s has led them to believe that the relationship could not be terminated without reasonable notice and, even if there is no contract, Tesbury’s cannot deny the longer term relationship and that they are entitled to compensation. Tesbury’s had deliberately avoided entering any long term commitments to allow them as much flexibility as possible given the fast changing nature of the ready meals market.

Advise Tesbury’s as to whether or not SS can claim there is any binding obligation between them either in contract or as the result of estoppel. (30%)

Read part of the answer →

Question: HC Publishing Ltd (“HC”) is a book publisher and wholesaler. They recently put an advert in the national press stating,

“Buy a copy of the new book by the famous chef, Marco Sowhite “ Cook to Perfection”“ and if you write a 500 word review of the book and send a copy of it to reach us before 30 September, we will give you a voucher for a free meal in Marco’s top class restaurant.”

The book was very popular and HC was inundated with reviews and claims for vouchers. As a result, HC put a notice on their website and notices in the book stores selling the book on 25th September saying,
“No more reviews of “Cook to Perfection” required. No money will be paid for any reviews received after 25th September.”

Joseph saw the advert, bought the book and faxed his review to HC on 25th September at 3.30pm. Unfortunately, the fax machine was out of paper and his review was not seen by HC until 27th September.

Anton is a freelance cookery writer and food critic. He had bought a copy of the book and sent in a 500 word review of the book by email on 23rd September not having seen the advert. Anton’s friend later tells him about the advert and the voucher for the reviews on 24th September. On 1st October, Anton enters into an employment contract with HC as cookery editor. After he has been there for 3 weeks he reminds them about his review and HC promise to pay him an additional payment of £75 on top of his salary for the review he has written.

Jamil saw the advert, bought the book and sent in a review by post on 20th September. His letter never arrived.

Sobia saw the advert, bought the book and had written 400 words of her review by 25th September and emailed her 500 word review to HC on 29th September. She did not see the notice put on the website or in the stores by HC on 25th September.

Robin saw the advert and bought the book intending to write a review. On 25th September his friend who works for HC told him about the notice and that no more reviews were required. Robin quickly wrote his review and hand delivered it to HC that day.

Advise HC as to whether or not they are contractually bound to give the vouchers to Joseph, Anton, Jamil, Sobia and Robin or the sum of £75 to Anton.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Practice essay (2009) for the new Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill Part 2. States the constitutional convention for which governs the arrangements for laying treaties before Parliament ( the “Ponsonby Rule”) should be placed in statute. Discussing the implications of codifying conventions and royal prerogative powers.

Read part of the answer →

Question: Albert and Vicky liked to experiment sexually, so Vicky acquired a bondage kit that they could use at home. Albert put on a leather mask and, at his suggestion, Vicky tied his feet together tightly with a rope, causing him pain. He then helped her to suspend him upside down from the upstairs banister rail. Vicky then heard what sounded like a car crash in the street outside. Leaving Albert swinging, she ran out to see if she could help. When she returned to telephone for an ambulance, she found that Albert had had an attack of previously undiagnosed asthma and had suffocated.

Advise Vicky about her possible liability for homicide.

Read part of the answer →

All categories of law coursework

New user?

Registering is fast
and easy

Welcome back

Categories

• All categories (709)
• Commercial Law (52)
• Company Law (6)
• Constitutional & Administrative Law (7)
• Contract Law (100)
• Criminal Law (81)
• Employment Law (9)
• English Legal System (78)
• Enviromental Law (8)
• Equity & Trust Law (20)
• European Union Law (58)
• Family Law (25)
• Human Rights Law (38)
• I.T. & the Law (5)
• Insolvency Law (2)
• Intellectual Property
  Law (12)
• International Law (19)
• Jurisprudence (27)
• Land Law (46)
• Law of Evidence (11)
• Legal Practice Course (4)
• Medical Law (14)
• Public Law (42)
• Professional Skills
  Practice (1)
• Roman Law (2)
• Tort Law (45)