the UK's law coursework
& essay library
1st & 2.1 work written by
UK LLB law students
- 10 downloads - £4.99
- 50 downloads - £9.99
- 150 downloads - £19.99
Support your studies today
- Guide your essay writing
- Improve your confidence
- Beat writer's block
- Use when revising for exams
- Help keep academic stress at bay
- Learn more - finish work on time
Question: 'Judicial review has undergone a radical restructuring in recent years. Wednesbury unreasonableness and ultra vires have given way to rights based review in which the principle of proportionality and the doctrine of deference are central.'
Answer: Whilst the introduction of the proportionality principle can be argued to have restructured judicial review, the irrationality principle cannot be argued to have been replaced by it, as overall the rights based...
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Constitutional and Administrative Law | Year: 1st | Words: 781 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2014 | Date submitted: May 13, 2015 | Coursework ID: 930
Question: ‘It is only fair that people be held responsible for consequences of their acts, which they had in fact foreseen and not consequences which an imaginary ‘reasonable person’ should have foreseen’.
Critically discuss with reference to the decisions in Caldwell and R v G.
Answer: Overall it would profoundly unjust for the English legal system to hold people responsible for consequences of their actions, if they were incapable of conceiving such consequence would occur. However, it can...
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1201 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2014 | Date submitted: May 13, 2015 | Coursework ID: 929
Question: Assess the significance for parliamentary sovereignty of the decision in the case of Jackson v Attorney General  UKHL 56.
Answer: Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the British constitution, which holds that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the United Kingdom. A. V. Dicey stated that Parliament has ‘the right to...
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Constitutional and Administrative Law | Year: 1st | Words: 921 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 13, 2015 | Coursework ID: 928
Question: Jordan is a famous director of musicals. In January 2008 she hired Fishy Ltd (Fishy) to create the stage sets for her new production starting in March 2008. Fishy would create 5 different stage sets for use in the musical at a total cost of £4 million. In February 2008, Fishy informed Jordan that it would be unable to complete the sets on schedule as one of its key workers had fallen ill. Jordan, fearing she would not be able to start on time, accepted that Fishy would create only 4 sets. Closer to the opening deadline, Jordan decided that she needed all sets as originally agreed and told Fishy that unless it performed fully, she would not pay Fishy a penny. Fishy, fearing the loss of the entire contract, managed to complete all 5 sets on time. It presented an invoice to Jordan, who nevertheless refused to pay the full amount, arguing that the musical was not well received by the public and that Fishy should share the loss. Fishy, having lost patience with Jordan, agreed to accept £2 million in full settlement.
Answer: The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not Jordan is legally obliged to pay the full amount of £4 million to Fishy despite making a loss in the...
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 2569 | References: No | Date written: May, 2008 | Date submitted: May 13, 2015 | Coursework ID: 927
Question: In January Advent Housing Corporation (Advent) hired Cheery Brothers Ltd (Cheery) to renovate their buildings with a view to sell to private owners. Advent was hoping to make an overall profit of £500,000 from the sale of the regenerated estate and improved flats. Cheery’s fee would be £100,000 including work and materials. While the two parties were still negotiating the details of the work to be undertaken, Advent hired machinery and started removing earth around the estate to prepare the ground for Cheery’s works. Cheery was aware that this work, costing Advent £15,000, was part of the overall regeneration project for the estate. The parties reached agreement in March, but upon arrival at the estate, Cheery’s directors realised that the estate could not be brought up to their exacting standards and decided to abandon the project, rather than do a bad job. Advent consequently had to put the flats up for sale without the benefit of renovation or area regeneration and made a profit of a mere £10,000.
-Was there a contract
-Two parties were still negotiating
Answer: The issues of concern here are whether Cheery’s actions were a breach of contract and what remedies are available for Advent now that the profits gained were so much lesser than what...
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 2387 | References: Yes | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 13, 2015 | Coursework ID: 926
Question: 1. George is a used car salesman. In January 2008 he put a notice in the local newspaper advertising a special offer on a 1992 Fiat Panda offering to sell the car for £50 to the first person to walk in the door of his store on the last Sunday of the month (27th January). Janet read the notice and sent a letter to George accepting his offer saying that she would be there on the last Sunday of January to make the payment. Anna also saw the notice but thought the price too high and called George to discuss it. On 26th January she offered George £40. George thought this was a fair price, placed a notice on his website saying ‘Offer on Panda withdrawn’ and consented to sell to Anna. It was agreed that Anna would pick up the car the next day (27th January). On 27th January, before Anna showed up to collect the car, Fiat collector Richard was the first person to enter the store and offered George £500 for the car. George agreed and Richard drove the car away minutes before Anna and Janet walked in the store, both demanding the car.
Answer: This case firstly concerns the issue of whether George’s advertisement could be considered a Unilateral offer or just an ‘invitation to treat’. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball company, the...
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1425 | References: No | Date written: June, 2008 | Date submitted: May 13, 2015 | Coursework ID: 925
Question: Critique of argument on J.Finnis “Natural Law and Natural Rights” 2nd Ed. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2011) pp 245-52
Answer: This essay will explore Finnis’s arguments on authority of rulers and how it fits into his main thesis. It will be argued that an a ruler’s authority is not derived from transmission,...
Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Jurisprudence | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1935 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: May 05, 2015 | Coursework ID: 924
Question: What is law?
Answer: Introduction Very few questions in the human society has been asked with such persistence for so long such as the question as “What is law?” As H.L.A Hart mentions even if we...
Details: - Mark: 68% | Course: Jurisprudence | Year: 1st | Words: 5038 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2014 | Date submitted: May 05, 2015 | Coursework ID: 923
Question: ADVOCACY SUMMATIVE ESSAY - WRITTEN SUBMISSION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (Civil Division)
B E T W E E N:
IGNITE FIREWORKS PLC
ADVOCACY SUMMATIVE ESSAY - WRITTEN SUBMISSION 67%
1. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Jack and Jill Hill was a married couple but have had marital problems. After months of disagreement Jack moved out of the family home in July 2014 and into a rented accommodation. Jack maintained his job at Ignite Fireworks PLC.
On 03/10/2014 due to an electrical fault at Ignite Fireworks PLC a number of fireworks in containers detonated resulting in an explosion. Jack who was completing a nightshift was trapped in the premises.
Mr Spratt the site manager raised the alarms, contacted emergency services and contacted Jill who was still Jack’s emergency contact.
Jill initially assumed that Jack was involved in a minor incident. Arriving on scene at 7am, she witnessed numerous fire engines and ambulances. At the emergency triage area Jack had received emergency treated and was covered by a blanket, only his singed hair, blackened face, burnt hand and a tube inserted into his throat was visible. Witnessing this cause Jill to break down and weep and shake uncontrollably. Jack was transferred to Midlands Hospital where he stabilised. Jill remained at his side for the entire week before he was discharged and returned to his family home.
Subsequently Jill brought about a claim for negligently inflicted psychiatric harm as she displayed Post-traumatic stress disorder and suffered frequent flash backs of the scene.
The Trial Judge Lean found the following facts, (i) Jill had suffered a medically recognised psychiatric disorder from nervous shock, (ii) When Jill first saw Jack, he was in a controlled state and was not being treated, (iii) Jack and Jill subsequently divorced.
Judge Lean found that Jill could recover as secondary victim on the grounds that, as spouse it was clear that she had a close tie of love and affection with Jack and arriving at the factory Jill had witnessed the immediate aftermath and was therefore proximate to the accident in time and space.
The case is being appealed by Ignite Fireworks PLC in the court of appeal.
2. GROUND OF APPEAL
As there was a two and a half hour time delay between the time of the accident and Jill seeing Jack, having been treated and in a controlled state, it cannot be said that Jill had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the accident.
3. APPELLANT OUTCOME
The appeal to succeed.
4. RESPONDENT OUTCOME
The appeal to be dismissed.
Answer: The Law at present The law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is in a state of disarray, as Lord Steyn mentions that the law in this area “is...
Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3471 | References: No | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: May 05, 2015 | Coursework ID: 922
Question: ‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission plays a vital role in the criminal justice system.’
Answer: The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was established under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, in a time when there was a public crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system. It was...
Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 2000 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2014 | Date submitted: May 05, 2015 | Coursework ID: 921