Home > All categories

All categories

Question: “...duress does not negate the existence of consent but is based upon a finding that the victim had no other realistic option available other than to agree.”
Poole, Jill ‘Textbook on Contract Law’ (10th edn OUP, Oxford 2010) page 565

Task: Examine the above statement in view of economic duress in English contract law, and compare it to the concept of duress in Malaysia.

Answer: Everyone has the freedom to enter into a contract. A contract can only be legally binding if the parties enter into the contract with free consent and voluntarily. No one can be...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3821 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2012 | Date submitted: January 28, 2015 | Coursework ID: 899

Question: Adjustments to the Constitution of the United Kingdom are needed to face the various challenges of the 21st century.

Evaluate any four constitutional reforms undertaken in the United Kingdom to face the challenges of the 21st century. Draw a comparison with the position in Malaysia.

Answer: Constitution is a set of rules which governs an organization. Turpin defined constitution as ‘a set of rules, conventions and practices which regulate and qualify the organization and the operation of the...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Constitutional and Administrative Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3521 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2012 | Date submitted: January 28, 2015 | Coursework ID: 898

Question: There are two ways in which corporate governance can be carried out: the effective way and the ineffective way. The ineffective way is a system of soft law like the Combined Code on Corporate Governance in the UK, which was created by consultation with the public companies and which those companies may choose to ignore if they choose to do so. This means in practice that public companies will ignore the code when economic conditions make it desirable to ignore it.” Alastair Hudson, ‘Understanding Company Law’

Critically evaluate this statement. To what extent do you do agree with the views put forward?

Answer: Introduction Corporate governance, as a concept, is not new. It appeared early last century, in the Anglo-Saxon countries following the development of capitalism. Corporate governance is associated with the organization of the...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3517 | References: Yes | Date written: June, 2010 | Date submitted: December 10, 2014 | Coursework ID: 896

Question: ‘Of course, it is necessary for conveyancing to be made as easy as possible, and for purchasers to be protected. However, this should not be at the expense of beneficial interests.’

Discuss, with reference to actual occupation.

Answer: This question asks for a clarification and examination of the principle of conveyancing and for a discussion of how this seeks to balance the interests of a third party purchaser of land...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 60% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3412 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2013 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 889

High Flyer Ltd (HFL) employed Jenny Forbes (JF) in a senior sales executive role. She commenced in employment on 06 January 2003. JF has a written contract of employment and was given a letter of offer when she commenced. JF’s contractual notice period is 6 weeks and her age is 48.
JF obtains regular pay increases against her basic salary, which for the financial year ending March 2013 was £36,100.
However, a substantial part of her remuneration package is obtained through bonuses and allowances as follows:
- A discretionary loyalty bonus of £6,000 per annum, which is always paid on on or after 15 December each year. In her letter of offer this is described as being “subject to the employee being in employment on the due date” (“the Loyalty Bonus”).
- A discretionary sales bonus, which is calculated as a percentage of her monthly sales and paid quarterly in arrears “subject to the employee’s continued satisfactory performance in their assigned sales role” (“the Sales Bonus”).
- A contractual monthly allowance of £1,500 per calendar month, which is paid monthly in advance and expressed to “cover expenses and inconvenience associated with the sales process” (“the Expenses Allowance”).
- A contractual London area allowance to compensate for the additional cost of living in the capital of £200 per calendar month paid in advance (“the London Area Allowance”).

The various bonuses mean that JF’s ‘on-target earnings’ for the financial year ending March 2013 amounted to £77,880.

HFL’s policy on sick leave is that the company will pay 30 days per annum (pro-rata) at full salary and another 30 days per annum (pro-rata) at half salary. There are notification requirements, which include self-reporting for absences of less than a week and GP certification for absences longer than a working week.

There is a ‘Flexible Working Clause’ in JF’s contract of employment in the following terms:
“You may be required to work in any location which High Flyers Limited may in its discretion instruct you to work and it is a condition of your employment that you work flexibly in your job role to assist High Flyers Limited to achieve its stated goals including (but not limited to) customer satisfaction and high levels of product sales.”

On 01 April 2013, HFL announce to sales staff (including JF) that due to the prevailing economic climate and after a careful costing exercise, HFL will be reducing the Expenses Allowance to £650 per calendar month, with immediate effect. There was an additional announcement that there would be no increase in base salary for any staff except the board level directors.
In early May 2013, JF wrote to her line manager at HFL, Bill Smith (BS) in the following terms:
“I am not happy about this proposal as I often spend large sums in obtaining my sales and feel the company should meet those costs.”

HFL did not respond to JF but rather proceed to reduce the Expenses Allowance payment for May 2013.
In late August 2013, BS called JF into a meeting room to discuss her performance. During the meeting BS concedes that JF is correct when she indicates that her sales performance is above average among her colleagues but BS contended that she has sold better in the past. BS also raised the issue of JF’s sickness absence to which JF responded that she had not breached HFL’s sickness absence policy either in terms of reporting her illness nor in terms of exhausting her contractual entitlement to sick leave. BS reminded JF that she had responsibility (on behalf of HFL) for a very lucrative and important sales area. Therefore, BS argued HFL expected higher than average sales within her area. JF stated that she has always done her level best to deliver sales for HFL and achieve higher payments for the Sales Bonus. BS did not ask and JF did not explain the reason for her absences. However, JF agreed that less sickness absence would see better sales figures and promised to improve her attendance in the future.

The meeting concluded with BS stating that HFL is prepared to pay the discretionary Sales Bonus for the quarter ending July 2013 but that JF’s attendance would need to improve significantly. BS also reassures JF that no formal action would be taken or recorded by HFL.
In late November 2013, HFL announced that the London Area Allowance would be halved to £100 per calendar month. Again JF wrote an email to BS to complain about this change to terms and conditions but received no reply.

On 09 December 2013, BS called JF to another informal meeting where her sickness absence was again raised. After an initial improvement in JF’s attendance in September and October 2013, JF had called in sick 7 times in November and early December 2013 with the number of days totalling 11 days off. This time BS is concerned about a fall in JF’s sales figures that has taken JF below average for sales executives for the quarter ending November 2013. BS stated that he wanted to consult JF about her taking a different sales area for HFL, which on average produced 10 per cent less sales. JF protested vocally as she is very concerned that there may be a corresponding effect on her capacity to earn the Sales Bonus. JF contended that the economic climate is causing some of her drop in sales and in any event the October quarter is only 10 per cent down on the August quarter. JF asked to know what the sales figures are across the business but BS responded that he could not reveal this information due to the sensitivities of her colleagues. JF also reminded BS that she has complied fully with HFL sick leave policy and still had not exhausted her entitlement to full pay. BS did not deny these points. BS left the meeting on the basis that he will consider JF’s points and get back to her.

BS emailed JF two days after the meeting on the morning of 11 December 2013, setting out a proposal that her sales area be swapped with that of her colleague John Newboys who recently joined HFL as a Sales Executive with effect from the beginning of 2014.

JF wrote back the next day and resigned her employment citing the continual erosion of her financial package.

JF consults HFL’s Human Resources Department about her final payment. HFL HR respond saying that salary will paid up and until her date of resignation but that neither the Sales Bonus for the November quarter nor the Loyalty Bonus for 2013 would be included in the final payment.
Later that day, JF concerned about her continuing bouts of poor health consults her GP who informs her that she has been suffering morning sickness due to the fact that she is pregnant and her expected date of delivery is 21 July 2014.

The following week JF telephoned HFL HR Department to complain about the non-payment of her allowance package and mentions her pregnancy.

BS rang JF later in the same day to asked JF to re-consider her resignation and to state that she could have her old position back with HFL subject to satisfactory performance. JF refused the offer saying she could not work for HFL any more.

JF consults you as to the claims that she may have against HFL and what sums may be recoverable from them. Also JF asks you to consider in your advice any arguments that HFL may have to defend JF’s potential claims. Please include references to relevant case law and statute (where appropriate).

Assume the date of your advice is 06 January 2014.

Answer: This question relates to the rights of Jenny not to be unfairly dismissed and the protection provided by the current law to that effect. The advice to Jenny will be based upon...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2610 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 888

Question: The right to be treated with dignity at work is a fundamental right which deserves protection in democracy.

Labour Law

Answer: Each individual has different rights at work which depend on his or her employment status but every single person has the right to be treated with dignity at work. It is fundamental...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 60% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 801 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2012 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 887

Question: Problem Scenario

A new client called Dangerous Sports Plc (DSP). DSP is the parent company in a group of companies which specialises in offering risky sporting events to travellers in the UK.

DSP provides all the administrative support for the group and it receives most of the profits from the group's subsidiaries. David Matthews is the Managing Director of DSP and runs the group.

DSP holds all of the shares in two wholly-owned subsidiaries in the UK and one wholly-owned subsidiary in New Zealand. The two UK subsidiaries are Wildfire Rafting Ltd (WRL) and Courageous Caving Ltd (CCL). The New Zealand subsidiary is called Barmy Bungee Ltd (BBL).

The following is a series of excerpts from the initial interview with David Matthews.

DM: I don't know what to do. It feels like all my hard work with this group is starting to fall apart.

Let me tell you the worst news first. There was a terrible accident at BBL - a party of six British tourists were all injured by a faulty bungee rope. I blame the temporary staff which BBL had hired, for not checking the bungee rope, but the tourists are proceeding with an action against DSP in the UK. Can they do this? Me and the DSP team have been on some trips to see the operation of BBL, and we have given them some advice in the past, but they were pretty much running the company independently of us. So why are the British tourists bringing an action against DSP?
Also, I am worried about a long-standing matter connected to WRL.

A young man called James was hurt in a white water rafting accident due to the negligence of some staff of WRL who were acting under the authority of the then Managing Director of WRL, Richard. James brought a successful action against WRL, but it turned out that WRL had no assets by this point. Richard had been trying to run WRL down, because he knew that the claim would break the company and he told me that he didn't want to give James the satisfaction of taking WRL's money. He transferred some of the money to another company which Richard's wife owns, called Active Breaks Ltd. And the rest of the money was transferred to DSP (which we were happy about as DSP was having some cash-flow problems at the time). I've heard that James is taking further legal advice and now I'm worried that DSP might suffer because of Richard's actions.

Finally, we have bad news from CCL. We recently found out that CCL has been put into insolvent liquidation. During the months before its liquidation, the Managing Director of the company, Linda, had been making increasingly bizarre attempts to keep the company afloat, including spending huge sums on advertising. She also made some outrageous claims about the company's ability to fulfil some large contracts for holiday companies, and as a result secured several large deals which were then breached by CCL. We are wondering whether the liquidator or the holiday companies could place any of the blame on her, as she has loads of cash and DSP is still hoping to recover some of CCL's assets after all the creditors have been paid.

Please prepare some written advice for David Matthews.

Answer: Solution - Counsel to David Matthews The following analysis is devoted to examination of the issues confronting Dangerous Sports Plc. and provides advice pertinent to their resolution at law. Source utilization embraces...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2044 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2013 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 886

Question: There has been some argument that recent decisions, which appear to downplay the importance of a misrepresentation damaging to the claimant’s goodwill as a necessary element in passing off, demonstrate a trend towards the metamorphosis of passing off into a tort of unfair competition.

Critically discuss this statement.

LLB Hons., 3RD Year
Mark - 60%

Answer: Introduction The aim of this coursework is to understand the nature of Passing Off and its key concepts and through judicial statements be able to define passing off, an area of intellectual...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 60% | Course: Intellectual Property Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2571 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2013 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 885


Critically analyse the extent to which reform is necessary within the current system of property taxation.

LLB Hons., 3rd Year
Mark – 74%

Answer: The main aim of this coursework is to afford a critical review of taxes affecting property in the United Kingdom (UK) and to present alternatives if any for reformation. The essay will...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 74% | Course: Commercial Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2742 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2013 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 884

Question: Problem Question
Samuel was a schizophrenic who thought that he heard “voices” from heaven advising him how to live. He lived next door to David who was a scientist and an atheist. Samuel and David did not get along. Over a period of time, Samuel’s “voices” had been whispering to him that David was an evil brought there to destroy Samuel and all he loved. As such, Samuel was advised by his “voices” to kill David.

One night, Samuel broke into David’s house and gagged David and tied him to his bed before setting the bed on fire. David died.

You are required to answer both of the following questions:
a) Identify and discuss the possible defences which Samuel can rely on in relation to a charge of murder.


b) “The possible available defences would have differed if Samuel had been intoxicated instead of schizophrenic.”

Using the factual problem as an illustration, critically discuss the effect of intoxication as being a form of an abnormality of mental functioning for the purposes of the defence of diminished responsibility in light of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Answer: Murder, a common law defence, is defined as an unlawful killing of a human being under Queen’s peace the malice aforethought – Coke. The actus reus of the murder is killing a...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3603 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2013 | Date submitted: August 03, 2014 | Coursework ID: 883

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


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.