Monday 20 July 2026
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
Hope you had a great weekend. Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. This is the web version of this newsletter.
Good luck to everyone sitting SQE1 FLK2 this week!
Last minute revising? Try playing revision videos in the background while you are falling asleep. Check out the new series for our YouTube channel members here.
This Week’s Question: A man has been banned from entering a large DIY store after previous thefts. Late at night, he climbs through an unlocked stockroom window intending to steal copper wiring if he can find any. He carries a screwdriver to force open locked storage cabinets, but does not intend to use it against anyone. He opens several boxes, finds no copper wiring, and is arrested before removing any property. Which of the following best reflects his likely criminal liability?
A. He is guilty of aggravated burglary because any tool carried during a burglary is treated as a weapon of offence.
B. He is guilty only of attempted burglary because no property was actually taken from the stockroom.
C. He is guilty of burglary, but not aggravated burglary unless the screwdriver was carried or intended as a weapon.
D. He is not guilty of burglary because a commercial stockroom cannot amount to a building for this offence.
E. He is guilty of burglary only if the prosecution proves that he attempted to steal after entering.
Dig Deeper: Revising FLK2 Criminal Liability? Watch https://youtu.be/wp0p4Y8WeGk
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) I have launched my own SQE Prep course, and it won’t cost you much more than a latte (and even that is optional)! Check it out on https://glintiss.co.uk/sqe-course/
2) Use code “REVSQE10” for 10% off all ReviseSQE products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at their shop.
3) Use code “IOANNIS” to get 10% off any plan on Law Drills at https://www.practiceworks.io/lawdrills/
Last Week’s Question: A company buys an automated packaging machine from a supplier on the supplier’s standard written terms. Before contracting, the supplier’s sales manager states that the machine can process 12,000 units per day and is suitable for the company’s fragile glass products. The written contract contains a clause excluding liability for pre-contract statements, limiting remedies for defects to repair or replacement, and preventing rejection of the machine. After delivery, the machine processes only 6,000 units per day and repeatedly damages the glass products. Which of the following best reflects the company’s legal position?
A. The company has no claim because the written contract excludes all reliance on statements made before the contract was signed.
B. The company may claim only if the supplier acted fraudulently, because non-fraudulent sales statements are not actionable.
C. The company must accept repair or replacement because business parties are always bound by standard written terms.
D. The company may have claims for misrepresentation and breach, but the exclusion and limitation clauses must satisfy the relevant reasonableness tests.
E. The company may reject the machine automatically because any inaccurate statement about performance makes the contract void.
Correct answer: D. The company may have claims for misrepresentation and breach, but the exclusion and limitation clauses must satisfy the relevant reasonableness tests. Feedback: This question combines misrepresentation, implied terms, and control of exclusion clauses in a business-to-business contract. The sales manager’s statement about performance and suitability may amount to an actionable misrepresentation if it induced the company to contract. Under section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967, damages may be available for non-fraudulent misrepresentation unless the representor proves reasonable grounds for believing the statement was true. A clause excluding or restricting liability for misrepresentation is controlled by section 3 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and is effective only so far as it satisfies the statutory reasonableness requirement. There may also be a contractual claim. The machine was sold by description and for a known commercial purpose. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, goods sold by description must correspond with that description, and goods sold in the course of business must be of satisfactory quality and, where the buyer relies on the seller’s skill and judgment, reasonably fit for the known purpose. The exclusion and limitation clauses are not automatically invalid, but nor are they automatically effective. Because the company contracts on the supplier’s standard written terms, section 3 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is relevant to restrictions on liability for breach. Restrictions on the implied Sale of Goods Act terms are also controlled by section 6 UCTA 1977, generally requiring reasonableness in a non-consumer contract.
The other options are incorrect because:
A wrongly assumes a non-reliance or exclusion clause is automatically effective.
B wrongly excludes liability for negligent or innocent misrepresentation.
C wrongly treats standard terms as conclusive regardless of statutory control.
E wrongly states that misrepresentation makes the contract automatically void.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation on Reddit! Feel free to forward this email to anyone you think will benefit.
If you wish to unsubscribe: You can stop receiving the newsletter at any time by emailing us at newsletter@glintiss.co.uk with ‘unsubscribe’ as the subject. We will promptly remove your email address from our mailing list. Thank you for being with us.
You will hear from me again soon.
All the best
Dr Ioannis (Yannis) Glinavos
Leave a Reply