Home > All categories

All categories

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: A critical review of the article ‘Prisoners, Politics and the Polls: Enfranchisement and the Burden of Responsibility’ by C. Behan and I. O’Donnell. (2008)

The University of Sheffield
Module Code: LAW133 Contemporary Issues in Law and Justice (20 credits)

Answer: The disenfranchisement of prisoners is one of the most debated topics in the 21st century. The article ‘Prisoners, politics and the polls ’ written by C. Behan and I. O’Donnell focuses on...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: English Legal System | Year: 1st | Words: 2749 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2016 | Date submitted: November 16, 2016 | Coursework ID: 1005

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

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.

LLB EUROPEAN UNION LAW, BBP University

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.

LLB LAW OF EQUITY & TRUSTS COURSEWORK, BBP University

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: Examine the nature of the British Constitution and its relationship to Constitutional Conventions.

CONTENTS
Introduction 2
Sources of the British Constitution 3
Functions of Constitutional Conventions 4
Conventions and its Constitution Importance 5
Monarch’s Powers 5
Rules that regulate the Parliament 6
Ministerial Responsibility 7
Conclusion 9

Answer: This paper will examine the nature of the British Constitution along with Constitutional Conventions. The first proportion will record the history and sources of the unwritten British Constitution. Subsequently, a major non-legal...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Public Law | Year: 1st | Words: 3019 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2015 | Date submitted: October 08, 2016 | Coursework ID: 981


Page 8 of 103« 5 6 7 89 10 11 »

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.