Home > All categories

All categories

Question: Dora died earlier this year, leaving a valid will appointing her husband Edwin and her friend Fiona as her trustees and giving all her estate to them to be held on trust ‘for Edwin during his lifetime and then for such of my children Alice, Boris and Cassandra who reach 21 and if more than one in equal shares’. The will contained no other provisions. Alice, Boris and Cassandra are Dora’s children by an earlier marriage. Alice is now 23, Boris is 18 and Cassandra is 15. The trust fund was worth £600,000 when Dora died.

Fiona speaks to her writer friend Gerald who has made a substantial amount of money from his own investments. He recommends that the trustees should invest £150,000 of trust money in an investment portfolio which subsequently increases in value to £300,000 and another £150,000 in shares in Sound Plc. The remainder of the trust fund is put into a bank account. Sound Plc goes into insolvent liquidation a few months later and the shares therefore become worthless.

Edwin does not particularly like Dora’s children and he has a poor relationship with them. Recently Alice asked the trustees for £40,000 from the trust to enable her to set up a dog grooming business. Boris is about to go to university in London to study politics and he has asked the trustees if he can have some money from the trust to help him with living expenses.

Partly as a result of their poor relationship with Edwin, Alice and Boris are now considering whether it would be possible to end the trust and divide the trust fund between the beneficiaries.

You are asked to provide practical legal advice, specifically addressing the above facts and appropriately citing all relevant authority in answering the following questions, which carry equal weight:

(a) Whether the trustees have acted lawfully in making their investment decisions and what consequences may follow if not

(b) Whether Alice and Boris can receive help from the trust, as requested

(c) Whether, and if so how, your answer to (b) would be different if Edwin has now died

(d) Whether the trust can be ended and if so, how this could be achieved. You may assume for this part of the question that the facts are as in part (c) above.

Mark - 65%
Coursework 2 - Equity and Trusts (Year 2)

Answer: The issue relates to the power and duties of trustees. The trust grants Dora’s estate to Edwin for life, meaning he has a life interest and benefits from the income generated by...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Equity and Trust Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2180 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: February 15, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1002

Question: With reference to relevant legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, critically discuss the significance of the status of Union citizenship for free movement rights.

Mark: 72%
EU Law (Year 2)

Answer: The original aim when forming the European Union (EU) was to facilitate economic integration within an internal market. The parameters for the internal market was set out in Article 26 of the...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 72% | Course: European Union Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2199 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: February 15, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1001

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

W201 Law: the individual and the state

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: 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.


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

Question: ‘The Court of Justice was right to interpret article 34 TFEU as prohibiting all measures which hinder trade between Member States. However, it has not done enough to maintain, develop and strengthen that principle. On the contrary, the Court has diluted the principle by introducing unnecessary and ill-conceived limitations to it. Moreover, it has been far too tolerant towards the justifications advanced by Member States for the restrictions they continue to impose on goods.’

Critically discuss this statement with reference to relevant treaty articles, decided cases and academic opinion.


Answer: The main provision of Article 34 and 36 TFEU will first be considered which they are binding on public bodies and semi-public bodies and the Member State will also be liable under...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: European Union Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2350 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2010 | Date submitted: October 19, 2016 | Coursework ID: 983

Question: ‘Developments in case law over the past half century have shown that equity is now more flexible when assessing whether the three certainties have been satisfied. It is now possible to give effect to informal trusts of personal property, if not those of land.’

Discuss this statement.


Answer: This essay will concentrate on the three certainties and this essay will discuss about whether the three certainties have been satisfied and if it is possible to give effect to informal trusts...

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: 982

Question: Critically discuss the extra-territorial application of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

Answer: Throughout humanity there is one growing strand of belief that runs through us no matter the race, religion or gender and that is the inviolability of the human person. Aristotle explains this...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: European Union Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2472 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2016 | Date submitted: May 27, 2016 | Coursework ID: 975

Question: Discuss the significance of implied duties with regards to the sale of goods enumerated in sections 13(1) to 14(3) of the UK Sale of Goods Act of 1979.

This assignment test Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Answer: An implied duty is a statutory term added to any contract, in this case the sale of goods, regardless of what the parties involved have added to the contract, and are found...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Commercial Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1444 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2016 | Date submitted: May 27, 2016 | Coursework ID: 974

Page 4 of 103« 1 2 3 45 6 7 »

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


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.