Home > All categories

All categories

Question: 4. Hotdog contracts with Ivor to hire him his reception suite and to provide the catering for 200 guests for the wedding of Ivor's daughter Judy to Keith, which is to be held on the afternoon of 1st May. Ivor makes a pre-payment of £2000 and agrees to pay the balance of £5000 on the morning of the wedding. On 25th April, by which time Hotdog has made the wedding cake and procured supplies of champagne but has not prepared any of the food for the reception, Keith is very seriously injured in a road accident and admitted to hospital, where he lies in a coma. Ivor telephones this news to Hotdog on the same day and tells him that the wedding is off. Hotdog replies: "That's your business: you are paying me to put on a reception and so far as I'm concerned the show goes on." Hotdog prepares the food and makes all the other arrangements for the reception, but no guests come.

(i) Is Ivor entitled to the return of the £2000, or any sum?
(ii) Is Hotdog entitled to claim the £5000, or any sum?


High 2.1 essay, 66/100, 2nd year Contract law, Oxbridge

Answer: Ivor (I) is entitled to the return of the £2000 in (i) and Hotdog (H) is entitled to claim for the value of the wedding cake and champagne, but not the rest...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 66% | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1087 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: January 11, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1029

Question: 4. Hotdog contracts with Ivor to hire him his reception suite and to provide the catering for 200 guests for the wedding of Ivor's daughter Judy to Keith, which is to be held on the afternoon of 1st May. Ivor makes a pre-payment of £2000 and agrees to pay the balance of £5000 on the morning of the wedding. On 25th April, by which time Hotdog has made the wedding cake and procured supplies of champagne but has not prepared any of the food for the reception, Keith is very seriously injured in a road accident and admitted to hospital, where he lies in a coma. Ivor telephones this news to Hotdog on the same day and tells him that the wedding is off. Hotdog replies: "That's your business: you are paying me to put on a reception and so far as I'm concerned the show goes on." Hotdog prepares the food and makes all the other arrangements for the reception, but no guests come.

(i) Is Ivor entitled to the return of the £2000, or any sum?
(ii) Is Hotdog entitled to claim the £5000, or any sum?


High 2.1 essay, 66/100, 2nd year Contract law, Oxbridge

Answer: Ivor (I) is entitled to the return of the £2000 in (i) and Hotdog (H) is entitled to claim for the value of the wedding cake and champagne, but not the rest...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 66% | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1087 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: January 11, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1028

Question: Offer and Acceptance
Question: On 1st May Aga decides to sell her collection of pots. She places an advert in the local paper, ‘Beautiful Arden pot for Sale. £500 or nearest offer.’ She includes her telephone number, email address and postal address on the advert. On 2nd May Beatrice emails Aga saying, ‘I will buy the pot for £450.’ Aga replies saying, ‘I will take £475 but please let me know by 5pm today as another customer is calling to see the pot tomorrow.’ Beatrice immediately emails back asking if Aga will accept payment by cheque. By 4.30pm she has not heard from Aga so sends a further email to say she will buy the pot for £475. Aga’s internet connection is lost that afternoon and Aga does not get this email until it is reconnected on 5th May. On 3rd May Chad calls Aga and says he will buy the pot for £400 but Aga says she would not take less than £475. Chad says he will think about this. Later that day Chad writes to Aga saying he will pay £475 but the letter is misaddressed and never arrives. On 4th May Aga sells the pot to Didier for £500. Didier, a friend of Beatrice, meets her on 5th May and tells her of his luck in getting the pot. Beatrice is upset as the pot would complete her Arden Collection.

Advise Aga.

Answer: In order to advise the Aga as to whether a legally binding agreement exists, all the information provided and the issues in contention are to be taken into consideration. From the face...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1479 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: December 27, 2016 | Coursework ID: 1000

Question: Model answer on misrepresentation
Question: Claudine is a builder and requires materials for a conservatory roof she is building. She is informed by Roofit & Co that they can provide the materials and suggest that Claudine use glass incorporating the latest technology: glass that is only 5mm in thickness but which provides all the heat and security benefits of glass that is 50mm in thickness. In order to ensure that this glass is appropriate for the conservatory roof, Claudine telephones the glass manufacturers, Pilkers Ltd, and their salesman confirms its suitability. Roofit & Co possess the most recent manual for this type of glass which notifies the reader that this glass is not suitable for conservatory roofs. However, Roofit & Co have never read this manual. Claudine also has a copy of this manual but has never read it either. Claudine is impressed by this type of glass and decides to order all her materials from Roofit & Co, who offer her a 20% discount for a bulk order. However, after fitting it to the roof, a bird sits on the glass and the glass shatters into pieces, falling onto Claudine and injuring her badly. She is prevented from working for six months and her customer refuses to pay. This leads to Claudine losing a lucrative contract and future business.

Advise Claudine on her claim against Roofit & Co.

Answer: My advice to Claudine on her claim against Roofit & Co would depend on the contentious issues surrounding the false statement(s) made by them, on which Claudine relied upon and subsequently suffered...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1928 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: December 26, 2016 | Coursework ID: 999

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

Explain the given statement in light of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Discuss the definition, history, the concept, overlaps, checks and balances and relevant cases and legislation. Explain further by comparing other jurisdictions.

Table of content
• Table of content…………………………………………………………….…….1
• Constituents of a Criminal liability……………………………………...2
• Components of an actus reus………………………………………….…..2
• General rule of omission……………………………………………………...2-3
• Duty to act of doctor for patient…………………………………..……3-4
• Duty to act arising from a special relationship…………………..4-6
• Assumption of care for another………………………………………….6-7
• Duty arising out of contract or public duties…………………….7
• Duty arising out of statute……………………………………………..….7-8
• Duty arising out of creation of a dangerous situation.…….8-9
• Social implications…………………………………………………….………9-10
• Legal implications………………………………………………………..…..10
• Moral implications…………………………………………………………..10-11
• Economic implications..................................……………….….11-12
• Distinguishing an act from an omission………………………....12
• Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….12
• Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….13-14

Answer: Constituents of a criminal liability. A liability consists of two elements. The actus reus constitutes the package of behaviour which forms the substance of a criminal prohibition. The mental element (mens rea)...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Public Law | Year: 1st | Words: 3126 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2016 | Date submitted: December 23, 2016 | Coursework ID: 998

Question: Problem Question: Ivana places a sign in the window of her red Ford Transit van which van which reads, in part, 'for sale - £10,000 - low milleage - great shape - 1999 model - full service history available'.

In response to this notice, James speaks to Ivana about the van. He tells her that he needs a van to deliver flowers to his customers and asks her if this van would be suitable. Ivana, who has been using the van to transport kitchen appliances, states that 'it would be perfect'.

After examining the van and its service history, James agrees to buy it and pays £10,000 for it. He spends £1,000 and fits the inside of the van out with a sophisticated shelving system with water tanks to keep his flowers fresh on their way to his customers.

Three months after he purchases the van, he sees a picture of it displayed in a local newspaper in connection with the story of a serial murderer. It transpires that a previous owner of the van had used it to hide the bodies of his victims and that the van is a 2001 model. Once the background to James' van is made public, he finds that no one wishes to receive flowers delivered in this vehicle. While Ivana knew of the van's previous history and use, she had said nothing of this to James.

Advise James.

Answer: Several elements need to be established in order for a contract to be legally binding. First and foremost, it is clear that the type of contract formed between Ivana and James is...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 1st | Words: 3169 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2011 | Date submitted: December 23, 2016 | Coursework ID: 997

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


Page 7 of 103« 4 5 6 78 9 10 »

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.