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
with less worry

Latest submissions

Question: Discuss the Bancoult v Foreign Secretary (No2) in detail. Pay special attention to Lord Hoffmans judgement.

[First Year, Public Law, 2.1, UK LLB]

Answer: I INTRODUCTION The gross maltreatment of the Chagossians at the hands of the British did not shock me, nor did it even come as a surprise. Great Britain, or the ‘empire on...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Public Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1487 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2016 | Date submitted: December 02, 2016 | Coursework ID: 996

Question: PROBLEM QUESTION FOR LW601 ADVANCED CRIMINAL LAW (2015/16)

Paul and Donna have been married for seven years. The marriage has been in difficulty related to the fact that they have been unable to have children. Donna has developed depression for which she now takes medication. Paul begins having an affair with Jane, who soon becomes pregnant. When Jane is eight months pregnant, Paul comes home and tells Donna that he has been having an affair. He declares that he is leaving her for Jane, ‘who, unlike you, is not a barren, whiny woman’.

Donna is distraught and sits at home, brooding on her fate and forgets to take her medication. Later that night, having found details on Paul’s Facebook page, Donna goes to Jane’s house. She pushes a lighted rag through the door. The house catches fire. Paul dies instantly while Jane is brought to hospital critically ill due to suffocation. She goes into labour and the baby is delivered. Moments later Jane dies. The baby survives on life support for three months before dying.

Discuss the criminal liability of Donna for the deaths and any defences that might apply.

Answer: Introduction After studying the question of Donna’s criminal liability as it relates to the case, I have found her to be guilty of the murder of both Paul and Jane, while guilty...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1404 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2016 | Date submitted: December 02, 2016 | Coursework ID: 995

Question: Contract Law Problem Question

Alice wished to buy an automatic dishwasher for use in her small teashop in Whitstable. She visited the showroom of Nixons Ltd, an electrical goods shop. She bought a Washrite 666 dishwasher for £750, which came with free installation. Alice signed the three-page contract provided by Nixons without reading it. The machine was delivered the next day and installed in the kitchen.

Alice was impressed with the quality of the service that Nixons had provided her, especially the speed of delivery and installation. She told her friend Parvi about this and Parvi, who needed a new washing machine and tumble dryer, decided to buy them from Nixons. At Nixons’ store, Parvi told the assistant that she needed machines that could cope with large loads of washing, as she had a big family, including her four sons who played football regularly. She ended up buying two machines, each of which said on the front and in their respective operating manuals ‘10kg load efficient’.

Five weeks later, Alice’s dishwasher started to make a loud noise and water leaked from it, causing damage to the kitchen’s floor, which she found would need to be entirely replaced, at a cost of £2000. She reluctantly did this so the teashop could reopen as normal as soon as possible. Replacing the damaged floor required her to close the shop for two days, causing Alice to lose profits. Alice called a plumber to look at the dishwasher, who told her that he could not be exactly sure what the problem was – the machine had either not been properly installed or was missing an essential part. He said that it would cost Alice £200 for him to investigate the problem further by looking in the machine itself, and up to £500 to fix it.

Alice returned to Nixons to ask them to pay for the damage to her floor, to compensate her for the profits she would lose, and to give her either the cost of having the machine fixed or a full refund for the machine so that she could buy a new one from elsewhere. She was told by the manager that paying the full cost of the replacement floor was not possible, nor a full refund for the machine available, nor compensation for her lost profits, because of the following terms of the contract:

“Clause 38: In the event of a machine or its installation being faulty, Nixons will provide a replacement product or service only. This clause will be invalidated if the customer has attempted to (or has employed someone outside of Nixons to) fix the item in question.”

Clause 39: Nixons will only pay damages of up to £200 for property damage caused by failure of its goods.

Clause 40: Nixons is not liable for any other loss or damage (including indirect or consequential loss, financial loss, loss of profits or loss of use) arising from the contract or from the goods or their use, even if we are negligent.

Parvi had no problems with her washing machine, but found that after three weeks of regular use, the tumble drier took far longer to dry her washing than she expected and regularly overheated when loads above 8kg were in it, causing it to cut out until it had cooled enough to restart. An electrician who she called to look at the machine could not identify the problem. She returned to Nixons and asked them to replace the tumble drier with an equivalent model of the same value. However, the manager refused to do so, pointing to clause 38, because the back of the tumble drier had been taken off and the heating elements inspected by the electrician. On her way out of the store, Parvi noticed a large sign on the wall that stated in bold print ‘all contracts entered into are subject to Nixons’ terms and conditions of business. Customers should be asked to sign a set of these terms at every transaction*.’ Wondering what the asterisk was for, Parvi went closer to the sign and saw, in small writing near the bottom ‘*This does not affect your statutory rights’. Parvi had not been asked to sign the contract.

Advise Alice and Parvi.


[Second-year, Contract Law, 2.1. UK LLB]

Answer: Alice Liability From the details provided in the PQ, we can surmise that Nixons is potentially liable for up to £2750 + compensation for Alice’s lost profits, due to a breach of...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2136 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2016 | Date submitted: December 02, 2016 | Coursework ID: 994

Question: Liam was a keen collector of signed football stickers. Last Tuesday, his fiancée accidentally left open the front door of their house, and the wind blew away some of the stickers. When Liam discovered what had happened, he put up posters within a 1-mile radius of his house stating the following:

“Lost: collectable football stickers from years 2008-2012, all original and signed by the footballers. Any stickers returned to me at this address will receive a £50 reward.”
Margaret saw one of Liam’s posters and decided she would try to make some money. She went to the local corner shop and purchased an unsigned football sticker. At home, she scribbled a fake signature on the sticker with a green felt tip pen. In the fading light of the evening, Liam thought this was one of his stickers and gave Margaret the £50. The next morning, Liam realised that the sticker was not one of his collectable stickers so he contacted her to demand his money back. Margaret has refused to refund his £50 on the grounds that he had accepted the sticker she brought to him the previous evening.

Liam’s neighbour, Norbert, found one of the stickers on his pathway one evening. Knowing that Liam is a keen collector, Norbert assumed the sticker must have belonged to him so immediately returned it to Liam. At that time Norbert was unaware of the reward on offer. 3 days later Norbert saw one of Liam’s posters and went round to demand his £50 reward. Liam refused to pay him.

Orla had been visiting her Aunt in the area and saw one of the posters. As she was driving home, she saw what looked like one of the stickers on the road. She pulled over to pick it up, but did not have time to return back to Liam’s address in order to give it to him. Orla took the sticker home with her and then wrote a letter to Liam stating that she has his sticker and will return it for the £50 when she visits next Tuesday. Orla put this letter in the post on Thursday.

Having seen one of Liam’s posters, Kamil spent a lot of time looking for Liam’s stickers. Kamil found one sticker earlier in the week on Wednesday; he kept that well looked after in his shoebox. On Saturday Kamil found another sticker.

Unfortunately by Thursday evening, Liam had given up on the idea that any more stickers would be found. On Friday, he scribbled ‘offer cancelled’ across the face of the all the reward posters. This was the day before Kamil found the second sticker.

When Kamil brought the 2 stickers to Liam, he was told that no reward would be given to him on the grounds that the offer had been withdrawn. When he received Orla’s letter on Monday, he wrote back to explain the offer was no longer open and he would not pay her the £50.

Advise Liam on his liability to all the people above.

Note: You do NOT need to consider the issue of mistake in your answer to the question above.

Module code and title: LW4001 Contract Law

Answer: First, Liam’s offer in return for the stickers needs to be considered as widely as possible. It can be argued that the poster is an advert, which directly addresses the world-at –...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1998 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: November 28, 2016 | Coursework ID: 993

Question: Module code and title: LW4004 Legal Method & Skills

Review the passage below and then correct the referencing and citations by using footnotes. You should also correct the formatting of quotations and include a bibliography.

Note: You are not required to comment on the actual content of the following passage, which has been drafted to provide practice in footnote referencing, formatting quotations, and writing a bibliography correctly.

Passage: Save for contracts to create of transfer interests in land, which are required to be in writing (as per the 1989 Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act, section 2 subsection 1), the traditional view is that there are only three requirements for a valid contract in English law; an agreement, an intention to create legal relations and consideration from both parties.
In Currie v Misa (1875 LR10 Ex 153) Justice Lush stated at para. 162 “a valuable consideration in the sense of the law, may consist of either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.”
The doctrine of consideration is the embodiment of the idea that English Law will only enforce bargains, not mere promises that are given ‘for free’. Each party must ‘give’ or ‘provide’ something in return for the promise given otherwise there is no enforceable contract.
As Ewan Mckendrick points out in Contract Law, Text Cases and Materials (Chapter 5 , p147) consideration is an important distinguishing feature between contract law in civil jurisdictions and common law jurisdictions.
However, this clearly does not justify the doctrine and there are plenty who would question the place of the doctrine in the modern law. In an article entitled ‘Judicial reform of privity and consideration’ (Journal of Business Law, November 1986 , 466-473. Para. 466 & 467), Edward Jacobs offered two fundamental criticisms that are arguably still a problem today. First, the law as stated in textbooks and in some of the judgments in the area do not reflect how it would actually be applied in the courts. Secondly, even if this was not the case and the law was applied in accordance with the doctrinal theory, it would still not work satisfactorily.
Ewan Mckendrick (as per the reference above) highlights 5 criticisms of the doctrine: (i) it narrows down too far the scope of promises that can be enforceable, (ii) it has become too technical, (iii) it has become divorced from commercial reality, (iv) it is difficult to reconcile with modern theoretical models of contract law and (v) that it is over-broad and its work could be done by more specific doctrines (such as duress).
One example of the problem of the doctrine becoming too technical is in the area ‘Pre-existing duties’. Although the traditional view that an obligation already owed to someone cannot be good consideration (Stilk v Myrick (1809)) seems clear, subsequent cases have muddied the waters. Williams and Roffey [1991] is perhaps the best example of how the law has developed in an unsatisfactory, over complicated way. In Williams, Mr Williams was already under a contractual obligation to Roffey Bros. (Roffey) to carry out carpentry works as part of more general renovation works relating to several flats, but due to financial difficulties could not complete them. To ensure that they were completed on time (which was important to Roffey) Roffey agreed to pay an additional sum per flat on top of the original agreed price. Accordingly, Williams did not appear to be giving anything in return for this new promise by Roffey but still sought damages for money he said he was owed as a result of the agreement to pay an additional amount. As stated by Anne Street on the University of London International Programmes Undergraduate Laws Programme blog (http://laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/2014/12/29/consideration-part-2/ accessed on 15th September 2016), ‘any good law student given the facts of Williams v Roffey Bros would have made a reasonable conclusion that the claim by Mr Williams was doomed to failure’ . However (clearly to the surprise of those law students) Williams was found to have conferred a ‘practical’ benefit in agreeing to complete the contract on time, despite the fact that this was a pre-existing obligation. As a result the law has become unclear as to what will and what won’t be a ‘practical’ benefit for the purpose of valid consideration.
In defence of the doctrine M Chen-Wishart justifies the requirement of consideration as a reaction to ‘our deep instinct for reciprocity; an instinct which enhances co-operation and division of labour, whilst preserving the social equilibrium…. By requiring the reciprocation to be explicit, the consideration doctrine keeps the state away from the private domain where external coercion would distort the practice of gift-giving and so destroy much which is valuable about it’
As long ago as 1937 that the Law Revision Committee suggested the doctrine of consideration should be significantly re-considered (6th Interim Report of the Law Revision Committee (statue of frauds and the doctrine of consideration), Cmnd. 5449 (1937) and despite the arguments of a few academics, to my mind the case for change is stronger now given more recent developments in the law and in commercial practices than it was in 1937.
It is also clear from the non-binding treaty on the Principles of European Contract Law that the direction of travel in the commercial world outside of England and Wales is away from a requirement of consideration. For example, the treaty provides at Art. 2:101(2) provides that ‘a contract is concluded if: (a) the parties intend to be legally bound, and (b) they reach a sufficient agreement, without any further requirement.

Answer: Save for contracts to create of transfer interests in land, which are required to be in writing, as per the ‘Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act’, the traditional view is that there...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Professional Skills Practice | Year: 1st | Words: 1103 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: November 28, 2016 | Coursework ID: 992

Question: eTMA 06 Consider the criminal liability of Len, Gemma and Dwayne.

W201 Law: the individual and the state

Scenario
Len is about to retire from running the family business, a café at a seaside resort. His children are not interested in carrying on the business so Len decides to put the café up for sale. He markets the café himself at a price of £80,000.

Juliet has just finished a Business and Management degree and wants to buy the café. Len tells Ju-liet that the café has traded at a profit for the past 3 years. In fact, last year the café made a loss of £1,987 but Len is worried that Juliet will not buy the café if she knows the true facts about its profit-ability. Juliet asks to see the accounts and when Len tells her he cannot find them, she realises that Len is lying and decides not to proceed with buying the café.

Whilst he waits for someone to buy the business, Len carries on working in the cafe. On a busy Sunday, he takes an order for Gemma and Dwayne who are on holiday from abroad. Gemma and Dwayne have run out of money but are very hungry. They went into Len’s café hoping that they could eat their meal then slip out without paying. Gemma and Dwayne order a full English breakfast each with drinks. After they have eaten, Len brings the bill to their table. He says “Just pay at the till when you’re ready.” Gemma has enjoyed her meal and is having second thoughts about their plan not to pay. She says to Dwayne “I think we should pay up – we can use our emergency money – we don’t want to end up in an English jail.” Dwayne tells Gemma that they will not be paying and runs out of the café. As she has no money, Gemma walks towards the door of the café to follow Dwayne but Len grabs her by the arm and says, “No-one leaves my café without paying. We’ll let the police deal with this”.

Gemma manages to break free from Len and runs out of the café. When she meets up with Dwayne, Gemma shows him a large bruise on her arm where Len grabbed her.

Dwayne tells Gemma that before he left the café, he dropped his wallet on the floor. They agree that Dwayne will have to go back to the café to look for the wallet but Dwayne says, “How can I do that without that guy remembering I ran off without paying?” Gemma replies “I don’t know, you’ll have to break in after he closes I suppose.”

Dwayne and Gemma agree that Dwayne will go back to the café to look for the wallet. Gemma stays at their hotel but, before he leaves, she tells Dwayne “See if there is an open window you can climb through – please don’t break in unless you have to you’ll just make things worse – and what-ever you do, don’t hurt anyone.” Dwayne replies, “don’t be stupid, of course I won’t hurt anyone.” Reassured, Gemma waves goodbye to Dwayne.

When Dwayne gets to the café he smashes a small pane of glass in the door so that he can reach his hand in to unlock the door. He puts his arm through the broken pane and unlocks the door. Dwayne goes into the café but cannot find his wallet. Just as he is preparing to give up the search and leave, Len walks into the café. He recognises Dwayne and shouts, “What are you doing here?” Dwayne grabs an ornamental sword which is hanging on the wall of the café and stabs Len in the arm. Dwayne drops the sword and runs off. Len’s arm is bleeding heavily after the attack. He goes to the accident and emergency department of the local hospital where his cut is treated and stitched with 5 stitches.

Answer: CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF LEN: Fraud is an offence contrary to s.1 of Fraud Act 2006. There are three ways fraud can be committed and this is set out under Section 1( 2),(3)...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2276 | References: No | Date written: November, 2014 | Date submitted: November 04, 2016 | Coursework ID: 991

Question: Do you think that the contours for imposing liability for omissions are justifiable?

Critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of imposing liability for omissions.

Answer: In the nature of English Law, the co-existence of mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act) at the same time form the basis of criminal liability. This combination of elements...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 60% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 3005 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2015 | Date submitted: October 20, 2016 | Coursework ID: 987

Question: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." – Lord Acton.

Explain the given statement in light of the doctrine of Separation of Powers, discuss the definition, history, the concept, overlaps, check and balances and relevant cases and legislations , explain further by comparing other jurisdictions .

Answer: Lord Acton had expressed his observation that when a person is given the total authority or the final say in everything, it is inevitable that his/her sense of morality would eventually weakens...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Public Law | Year: 1st | Words: 3077 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2015 | Date submitted: October 20, 2016 | Coursework ID: 986

Question: Problem Scenario: Amy lives alone, but has always been very fond of her cousin, Beryl, who lives in the same village with her family (Charlie, her husband, and David, her son).

When Beryl tells her that Charlie has lost his job and that they are suffering from financial difficulties, Amy offers to help. She offers to give David, who is in his final year at university, £1,000, provided that he works hard and obtains a second class degree. Amy also agrees to pay Beryl £300 for all the errands she has run for her in the past. Beryl is pleased as she had, selfishly, expected some payment for all his effort. Amy also agrees that, although Charlie owes her £1,000, she will accept £500 instead. Charlie pays Amy £500.

David, who is exceptionally intelligent, does little work, but manages to obtain a first class degree. As a result, he obtains a lucrative graduate training post in a merchant bank.

Advise Amy, who has now quarrelled with Beryl and wishes to know to what extent she is bound by her promises.

Would it make a difference if Beryl paid Amy the £500?

Answer: In identifying the core of the question, the first point to consider is whether a valid contract had been formed between Amy and Beryl, Charlie, David. The potential contractual liability of the...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3106 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2015 | Date submitted: October 20, 2016 | Coursework ID: 985

Question: ‘The beneficiary principle has hampered the development of trusts law in England and Wales for over two centuries; it is too rigid and enforced far too strictly. Until the rules surrounding it are relaxed then there cannot be any flexibility with respect to private purpose trusts in this jurisdiction.’

Discuss this statement.

LLB LAW OF EQUITY & TRUSTS COURSEWORK, BBP University

Answer: The beneficiary principle is well-established in English trust law principle, which requires the trustees to hold people who benefits the trust property. However, the beneficiary principle has the highest impact on non-charitable...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Equity and Trust Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2463 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2010 | Date submitted: October 19, 2016 | Coursework ID: 984

All categories of law coursework

New user?

Registering is fast
and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

  1. Register with us
  2. Pay for instant access
  3. Or submit 3 pieces
    of your work for
    free access

Categories

Adobe Reader is required to access all coursework & essays. (pdf)
PayPal handles payments on our behalf. All major credit cards and currencies accepted.
A PayPal account is not nessesary.